Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Antoine Levy Lambert <antoine@(protected):
>  
>> 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
>>  
>
> +1 from me too, and your first draft is a good step forward.
>
>  
>>> 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 ?
>>  
>
> I also don't think we should not delve too much into explaining the
> other tools' differing philosophies. Adding a note that there exist
> many alternative tools that reuse the tasks/types, Ant's primary asset
> indeed, and mentioning those explicitly with hyper-linked names is
> fine and useful, but lets stay out of controversial debate about those
> tools vs Ant. --DD
>  
OK. The build tools in perspective should go to a separate web site.
Maybe one day I will create a blog.

Regards,

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


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