Just for fun, I let Google translate it. It isn't great prose, but it's more understandable than I expected.
See below. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:06 PM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: Brent Rector on Msbuild vs Ant Here goes then, bearing in mind I havent spoken french since '99 and my language skills there were mainly focused around safety warnings to do with antimatter and radiation "Danger, risque de radiation", bicicyle parts and telling french girls that I am very interested in what they have to say... The author says that it was a 1h15 presentation about Ant. It was clearly apparent that MS build is a good copy of Ant and also Nant. If the two speakers had started their talk by acknowledging that they supported the efforts of the NAnt community and that they participated in the development of the framework, they could still [equally] have justified their decision to completely rewrite it for the reasons listed below. GOOGLE ======================================================================== And for all to acknowledge you well, we had right during 1h15 to a splendid presentation of.... ant!. That can appear surprising known as as that but MsBuild is indeed a certified copy of Ant or rather of Nant. If the two announcers began their session by affirming that they supported the efforts of the Nant community and that they took part in the development of Framework, they also justified their decision all to rewrite by several reasons that us you lower listels. Back to Steve ======================================================================= concerning the techicanl details, the notion of Target is the same. Tasks are an equally integral part of the project. The plagiarism (sorry to use the term, but it is clearly the case) goes up to the API in the naming of the tasks, and the manner of using the properties [maybe attributes] is absolutely identical. But where are the differences, you ask me? Well, the developers had the idea to add functionality that is not in Ant to date. This is all explained the book "Introducing Longhorn" that was distributed free to participants during the conference GOOGLE =========================================================================== Concerning the technical part, the concept of Target was taken again with the identical one. The Task also form integral part of the project. Plagiarism (sorry of the term but it is indeed the case) goes until taking again the API one in the naming even classes. The interface of Custom Task are called Task, the method to implement execute(...) and the manner of using the properties is absolutely identical. But where are the differences will say to me you? And well, the developers had the good idea to add some nonexisting functionalities in Ant today. The whole is explained page 36 of the work "Introducing Longhorn" distributed free to the participants during the conference. Back to Steve ============================================================================ ===== [the bogus claims reprinted] We leave you to form your own opinion on the subject. The positive side is that an Ant developer [user?] will not be really, but also really, not lost with MsBuild. GOOGLE ============================================================================ ======== We let to you form your own opinion about the subject. The positive side that a Ant developer will not be really, but really then not being lost with MsBuild. [I havent been able to really translate that last sentence. I would guess it means that an ant user will feel at home with MSBuild] Ken: =================== Google couldn't translate it either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Let me add to your comments. > > >>1. Ant does not provide built-in target dependency analysis -a >>requirement for a scalable build system > > > <http://stefanbodewig.blogger.de/stories/10575/> > > And your case where name mangling is more difficult than the current > engine knows is a good point as well. We have a similar case in > <rmic>, where the Weblogic compiler adapter produces a different > result from Sun's. > > And then there is the case of dependencies between classes. If > superclass and subclass end up in different assemblies and you change > the superclass, the naive target dependency analysis will not > recompile the subclass. And people will never think of doing > something like the <depend> task as this is done by MSBuild. no. I think that is why they arent going to do C++ support; if you have to list dependencies by hand, stick to automake. Oh, wait, they dont support that, do they. > > >>3. Ant does not have a normalized concept of task inputs and outputs; >>a necessity for a build system to support intra-task communication. > > > We do have references, we just don't use them as much as we could > <http://stefanbodewig.blogger.de/stories/10636/>. > > I'm trying to get my thoughts on this into a better shape and will > have a proposal for the 1.7 timeframe. This sounds interesting. > > >>4. Unlike Ant, MSbuild is a secure build engine. MSBuild introduces >>the notion of partially trusted builds, project level sandboxing and >>task level sandboxing. > > > I couldn't find anything about this in the public docs about MSBuild. me neither. Which is why this smacks of a briefing rather than brent doing his own research. >>5. MSbuild has a richer extensibility model than ant. > > > I was laughing out loud on reading this. yes, I thought maybe it was a typo. You dont get more extensible than having no schema and the complete source to play with. > > >>6. Ant does not have the ability to import (macro insert) parts of >>the project file > > > It is fair to say that this is true for all released versions of Ant > (so let's get 1.6 out of door quickly ;-). And only if you deny > entities, of course. yes, but MSBuild is a year from shipping. They should really be comparing msbuild to Ant1.7 release; for now 1.6 vs MSBuild beta is the best comparision. >>What are we going to do now. I am feeling ruthless. > > > Wait until it apperas in MSDN to address it? Address it right now? > Judging from my blog's referers, people are searching for infomation > on MSBuild a lot ATM, so we may as well set the record straight right > from the beginning. no, we are going to our retaliation in early, as they say in rugby. I will send some emails to the relevant authorities. One nice thing about MS compared to Sun is that they are very easily contacted, and usually pretty responsive. If they dont respond, that is when you have to worry. It usually means they dont want to tell you something bad. now, they dont have to care what I say, but we do have the option of pulling all .NET support from ant1.6...we will just have to see if that matters to them. It'll be an interesting test of conflict of the tactical 'get .net developers today' over the strategic 'own the developers forever'. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
