On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Eric Fetzer<elstonk...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "solution files" - if you're building .NET, go look at NAnt instead of Ant. > The difference is similar to that of a Volkswagon Beetle vs. Rolls Royce...
Me think in the end more Beetles were sold, for far more total money, than Rolls Royce's ;-) Just picking on your analogy, that's all. I'm sure NAnt is a good too. Always easier to improve on an existing tool you copy, when you have the luxury of hindsight and no backward compatibility constraints though. Regarding the XML syntax, yes, it clunky but it's also that it's good enough that people don't want to spent the time making (or learning as a user) other front ends to Ant, something the body of Ant committers have already said on this list (or the dev list) they'd support and make it easier by adapting the Ant core if needed, if the patches started coming. Like many successful projects, Ant in part fell victims to its own success, where any evolution has to take the large body of scripts (and code in Ant's case) using it into account. There are many good alternatives to Ant out there, some better even most likely, but Ant has a community, tool / IDE support, and books to still make it relevant despite its many flaws. It's momentum has definitely slowed mind you, but just like Make it's not going away any time soon. Gradual obsolescence is normal in this field after all :) --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@ant.apache.org
