Stefano Marsili wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm really no Ant expert, but I'm working on a project
that might be of interest to this thread.
It defines an expression language that extends
Ant's property expansion. At the moment the language
is limited and is still subject to heavy changes
Kevin Jackson wrote:
On 9/16/06, Jesse Glick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
(I'd steer away from groovy before anyone suggests it ;))
Kevin, anything in particular you don't like about Groovy?
In my experience Groovy is an excellent scripting language
and has excellent Ant support but as
Kevin, anything in particular you don't like about Groovy?
Hi Paul,
Nice to 'chat' to you :)
My major problem with groovy was it's instability - every time I
looked at it previously, something was mentioned as still being
unstable etc.
groovy
def scanner = ant.fileScanner {
fileset(dir:
Kevin Jackson wrote:
On 9/16/06, Jesse Glick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
(I'd steer away from groovy before anyone suggests it ;))
Kevin, anything in particular you don't like about Groovy?
In my experience it is an excellent scripting language and
has excellent Ant support but as
Kevin Jackson wrote:
Kevin, anything in particular you don't like about Groovy?
Hi Paul,
Nice to 'chat' to you :)
My major problem with groovy was it's instability - every time I
looked at it previously, something was mentioned as still being
unstable etc.
Yes, it has had an interesting
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Jesse Glick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-0.5 on Lisp or Scheme.
I don't think anybody around here was more than half-serious.
I was more than half serious, but not as part of Ant, more as an
interesting side project
Don't get me wrong, I probably would have been
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about, if the members of ant-contrib were to agree to this,
merge ant and ant-contrib to have the if/ ...
Has anybody ever asked them?
Stefan
-
To
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd be surprised how much less lines of code you'd need when
compared to the Java version, really.
No really I wouldn't! Java is a *very* verbose language, Lisp is
probably one of the least verbose languages (apart from the ())
On 9/17/06, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about, if the members of ant-contrib were to agree to this,
merge ant and ant-contrib to have the if/ ...
Has anybody ever asked them?
jokeI think that the author
Hi everybody,
I'm really no Ant expert, but I'm working on a project
that might be of interest to this thread.
It defines an expression language that extends
Ant's property expansion. At the moment the language
is limited and is still subject to heavy changes
(I like to experiment and I'm
Hi,
Is Stefan the author of if/ ?
Antoine
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:01:32 +0100
Von: Peter Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: Ant Developers List dev@ant.apache.org
Betreff: Re: suggestion : Ant 1.8 full dist to include a \'scripting lang\'
On 9/17/06, Stefan
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Peter Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/17/06, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about, if the members of ant-contrib were to agree to this,
merge ant and ant-contrib to have the if/ ...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Jesse Glick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-0.5 on Lisp or Scheme.
I don't think anybody around here was more than half-serious.
Don't get me wrong, I probably would have been miserable as a
teenager were it not for CLtLR2.
?
Now copy can take a fileset, but you have a
On 9/16/06, Jesse Glick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if anyone would bring it up...
Well it took a prod of actually meeting the main users - and
discovering that most of them considered maven as being the 'de-facto'
build tool these days - from chatting to people at the
Hello,
I like very much your ideas Jesse and my experience is similar to yours.
I shy away from complex ant projects (several build files importing each
other ..., lots of antcall, ...) because I find them hard to master. I
am not sure of understanding myself all the rules concerning scopes of
I was wondering if anyone would bring it up...
+1 (is 1 allowed?) for including a scripting language implementation in
the standard Ant distribution, so that we can rely on it being there. In
fact I would suggest making Ant 2.0 assume a script as its input, and
have a compatibility mode for
On 9/15/06, Jesse Glick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My personal experience with Ant has always been that the tasks are
great, and the control flow is maddening. [...]
I don't buy the argument that Ant is currently declarative. It's
nothing of the sort in my experience. [...]
Whao, it's good you
There is also another possibility (the one that I am using) - write scripts
that generate ANT scripts and run them. It is slower, but it is more
lightweight in a sense that it is completely separate from ANT, so it does
not depend on ANT code. That script could be in any language, but a language
(project :name Ant :default echo
(target :name echo
(echo :message Hello World)))
Tasks would be functions or macros.
Anyone interested in a CLISP version of Ant?
You'd be surprised how much less lines of code you'd need when
compared to the Java version, really.
No really I
On 9/13/06, Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been looking at a couple of Lisp-on-jvm things, Kawa, and ABCL,
but Kawa is scheme not lisp, ABCL is alpha/bleeding edge and didn't
actually work (at all).
According to https://scripting.dev.java.net/
SCSI (http://sisc.sourceforge.net/)
According to https://scripting.dev.java.net/
SCSI (http://sisc.sourceforge.net/) a scheme implementation
is supported by JDK6 scripting via an engine provided by
https://scripting.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumentList
Cool, one more to look at
As a SideNote, does anyone know the state of
--- Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/06, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Matt Benson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dare I say it, could be fun if we could find
ways to
make a DSL that is Ant-focused. ;)
Ant is a DSL, isn't it?
Too lazy for
On 9/13/06, Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to https://scripting.dev.java.net/
SCSI (http://sisc.sourceforge.net/) a scheme implementation
is supported by JDK6 scripting via an engine provided by
https://scripting.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumentList
Cool, one more
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dare I say it, could be fun if we could find ways to
make a DSL that is Ant-focused. ;)
Ant is a DSL, isn't it?
The easiest thing would be a re-implementation of Ant in Common Lisp,
we'd get real macros and a
Kevin Jackson wrote:
(project :name Ant :default echo
(target :name echo
(echo :message Hello World)))
Tasks would be functions or macros.
Anyone interested in a CLISP version of Ant?
You'd be surprised how much less lines of code you'd need when
compared to the Java version,
For ant 1.8, we will support jdk6 javax.script.*
in some fashion.
JDK 6 has javascript (a nobbled version of
rhino) built in - so ant build files will
get that language for free if the they use JDK 6.
On 9/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think that a lot of the
--- Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I think we should at least consider
including a 'script'
language with the full dist (starting from 1.8)
so that scriptdef
isn't a lame duck out of the box.
Biggest problem might be that the language needs
to be license
Matt Benson wrote:
Talking about flamebait, I'll toss this out there: we
could create our own scripting language... with
domain-specific slants if/where applicable... this
would extricate us from any distribution issues, and,
dare I say it, could be fun if we could find ways to
make a DSL
--- Steve Loughran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Benson wrote:
Talking about flamebait, I'll toss this out there:
we
could create our own scripting language... with
domain-specific slants if/where applicable... this
would extricate us from any distribution issues,
and,
dare I
Talking about flamebait, I'll toss this out there:
we
could create our own scripting language... with
domain-specific slants if/where applicable... this
would extricate us from any distribution issues,
and,
dare I say it, could be fun if we could find ways
to
make a DSL that is
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a data point it's important to note that the python re-write
didn't attract more developers
I think that's because Gump still hasn't managed to prove it's not a
those Java people thing.
- having said that if you wanted apache
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dare I say it, could be fun if we could find ways to
make a DSL that is Ant-focused. ;)
Ant is a DSL, isn't it?
The easiest thing would be a re-implementation of Ant in Common Lisp,
we'd get real macros and a time-tested scripting
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Jan Materne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh - Gump3 is over?
Let's call it dormant.
Large parts of Gump are stable, there isn't much need for active
development. Maven 2 is the most pressing problem and it would either
need (more) support by the Maven community or me sitting
On 9/13/06, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dare I say it, could be fun if we could find ways to
make a DSL that is Ant-focused. ;)
Ant is a DSL, isn't it?
The easiest thing would be a re-implementation of Ant in Common
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/06, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(project :name Ant :default echo
(target :name echo
(echo :message Hello World)))
Tasks would be functions or
+1
I think we need a scriptdef library. Having a standard scripting language
would help too.
- Alexey.
On 9/11/06, Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Coming in too work today I was thinking about how although scriptdef
is a very handy way of quickly specifying tasks without
Personally I think we should at least consider including a 'script'
language with the full dist (starting from 1.8) so that scriptdef
isn't a lame duck out of the box.
Biggest problem might be that the language needs to be license
compatible.
Yes I can see this as a problem - sorry didn't
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Kevin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I think we should at least consider including a 'script'
language with the full dist (starting from 1.8) so that scriptdef
isn't a lame duck out of the box.
Biggest problem might be that the language needs to be license
38 matches
Mail list logo
