Thomas Down wrote:
> Right now, the one place ant is behind build.Builder is that
> it doesn't do the nice grouping of packages in the javadoc output.
> I'll get that fixed in the next day or two.
use the group tag:
michael
__
> If you have the time, maybe you could post your results and test program
> on a Web page or something? This would be something a lot of people would
> be interested in, I think.
The program is not a test program, but a real program called EPMR, which
refines protein crystal structures by molec
>
> I don't have any comprehensive numbers; however, I have tested a primarily
> numeric program on both Linux and Windows, and found that the best
> combination on both platforms was jikes for compilation, and the IBM JRE 1.3
> for runtime. I admit this result may hold for only this one program;
> "Thomas" == Thomas Down <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Thomas> Have you actually tried it and found that you had to wait
Thomas> 10 minutes? Ant compares it's working copy of the source
Thomas> tree against the main copy, and only rebuilds things that
Thomas> have chang
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 04:11:41PM +, Keith James wrote:
>
> I've used both, but couldn't figure out how to get ant to do the
> equivalent of
>
> java build/Builder package foo
You can't. At least, I don't think so.
If this turns out to be really important, I guess we could
auto-generate a
> "Thomas" == Thomas Down <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Thomas> Right now, the one place ant is behind build.Builder is
Thomas> that it doesn't do the nice grouping of packages in the
Thomas> javadoc output. I'll get that fixed in the next day or
Thomas> two.
I've used
We've been running for the last couple of months with two
alternative build systems:
- build.Builder -- a biojava-specific, and rather monolithic,
hack. Simple, though, and avoids having
an outside dependancy.
- ant -- nice and fast and configura
> > Granted jdk 1.3 is better than jdk 1.2; however, I still find that jikes
is
> > about 1.5 times faster than jdk 1.3. In addition, the bytecode produced
by
> > jikes runs faster.
>
> That's interesting. Do you have any numbers for this? And does
> it just apply to interpreters and naive JITs,
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 12:58:50AM -0800, Bradley A. Smith wrote:
> > Incidentally, you might like to look at the javac in jdk1.3 --
> > it's a complete rewrite of the old one, and is significantly
> > faster (and fixes a fair number of bugs).
>
> Granted jdk 1.3 is better than jdk 1.2; however,
> Incidentally, you might like to look at the javac in jdk1.3 --
> it's a complete rewrite of the old one, and is significantly
> faster (and fixes a fair number of bugs).
Granted jdk 1.3 is better than jdk 1.2; however, I still find that jikes is
about 1.5 times faster than jdk 1.3. In addition,
10 matches
Mail list logo
