Re: [POLL] Rewriting Ant's self description

[Antoine Levy Lambert]

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-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org