> -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Schwaebli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:23 PM > To: Ant Users List > Subject: Re: Python implementation for Ant > > I reply to all of you here. > > For me it does not matter so much, if Ant's XML is replaced > by Python, Jython, Groovy or another scripting language. I > think all would be better for writing Ant scripts than the XML way. > > In the beginning of Ant, XML seemed to be a good way. But > as it evolved, I guess it got more and more elements of a > scripting language and the XML way became more and more less > suitable. XML was not made for writing a script with it but > for being a data container. It is like a fork was not made to > comb hair but to eat with it. That is my opinion and experience. > > I once tried just to use the Ant API programatically in > Java instead of writing XML files and thought that it was not > designed for being used in a productive way but for being > able to do anything. But I am not sure if this still applies, > because that was two years ago when I tried it this way. > > Eclipse has now added support for debugging Ant scripts, > which shows their script nature. But other IDE developers > have to implement such a debugging feature too. If for > example Python is used for writing Ant scripts, there are > many IDEs with good support for writing, much better than a > normal XML editor. Or am I wrong? > > It is your baby, the Ant thing. I just told the you what I > personally would change if I were responsible for Ant. > > > --------------------------------- > Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. >
I have an idea. All those who think Ant's XML build files are a pain in the ass... Go use make for a few months, then come back and discuss this topic. -Rob Anderson --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
