> I've never used VSS, so I'll take your word for it. I hear > it's a crummy > SCM tool. Why do people use it? Believe me, I wonder how the hell > StarTeam, which sucks compared to Perforce or even CVS IMNSHO, got > entrenched at where I work. Happened before my time.
That's exactly why people use VSS, I believe. Moving SCM is a big thing to do, I guess. > > The .NET tasks aren't necessarily interactive, or controlling > > GUIs or anything else. > > This has puzzled me for a while, so I might as well ask -- > why if you are developing for .NET, which isn't cross-platform, > would you use a Java tool > to do your builds? Does .NET really not provide a quality > set of build and automation tools? Or are they too expensive to buy? > I don't get this one at all, but there must be a reason if .NET tasks > made it into the optional task set. In fact, there's a .NET Ant project (Nant) but the reason is somewhat simpler than that, I believe: not all projects which involve .NET *only* involve .NET. We write stuff which is mostly cross-platform Java, but with also a Windows component and in the future a Compact Framework .NET component - having a single build procedure is a great help. > > If you could give better alternatives for all of the tasks which > > you think Ant is no good at, it would make your case a lot stronger. > > I thought I did -- grep, sed and sh are three ubiquitous > tools that do stuff Ant's not good at (piping, stream editing, return codes, > looping, no compilation or packaging necessary). I don't see how those are alternatives for .NET and VSS tasks though. They may help with telnet, but I can't see that they'd end up being significantly better to use than the existing telnet task which *doesn't* require installation of Cygwin. Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
