Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> I agree its time to move away from "make without make's wrinkles" and
> prefer a description that says what Ant is rather than what it is not.
> Your draft does so pretty well.
>  
Thanks
> Personally I don't see any reason to compare Ant with any other tool
> from the same domain at all, YMMV.
>  
I would like to put the most famous or significant tools in perspective,
explaining how they differ in scope and in philosophy, rather than
comparing them in the sense of saying which tool is better, which each
user/project can decide for him/herself. Maybe this topic should go on
its own separate page ?

> Maybe we should first find out what we think Ant's strong points are so
> we know what to brag about^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H focus on in our
> description.
>
> To me Ant's main strength is the tasks, followed by the tasks and the
> tasks. Then comes extensibility, I guess.
>
>  
Both the tasks and the extensibility are the reasons for Ant's success.
I am using ant in deployment scripts because I know that that way I can
combine ssh and file manipulation tasks which work and have powerful
functionality with in-house developed tasks which are outside the scope
of Ant
>> Ant is a Java library and command line tool. Ant's mission is to
>> schedule processes described in build files as targets and extension
>> points dependent upon each other.
>>  
>
> "schedule" sounds wrong to me. I immediately think of cron and not of a
> build tool here.
>  
schedule might not be the proper English word. I looked online for a
translation of a French word "ordonnancement". In French 19th century
factories, there was an Ordonnancement office whose job was to define in
which order the different workshops within a factory should process
materials.

> Stefan
>
>  
Regards,

Antoine

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@(protected)