[openbeos-build-team] Re: Apples build team comments on Jam...

  • From: "David Reid" <dreid@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <openbeos-build-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:28:13 +0100

Which is what I said a couple of days ago. Had I known all the adverse
opinion when we started with jam I would have argued very strongly against
it, but now we have it we're stuck with it until we come across something
that it absolutely can't do - a situation we're NOT in at the moment.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <openbeos-build-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: [openbeos-build-team] Re: Apples build team comments on Jam...

> I agree pretty much with all your points, except the following:
> > - Ant.  I've used this on several Java projects.  Implemented in Java
> > (which
> [...]
> > reimplemented in a C++ build tool.  I think expressing building rules
> > in XML
> > is a pretty good idea, though XML can be excessively verbose at
> > times.
> With that I don't agree: In particular due to it's characteristic of
> added a lot of noise to the actual information, XML is a terrible
> format for files to be read and edited by humans. Read  http://www-
> 106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-sbxml.html for a good
> argumentation against this.
> > Actually if you guys really think Jam is that horrible I might
> > actually
> > write a build tool in Ruby.  Oddly enough when I was more involved in
> > Ruby
> > projects I was already considering this.  It sure seems like another
> > build
> > tool wouldn't HURT anything.
> I think, most of us agree (even David ;-), that it looks like Jam
> finally turned out to be able to deal with the needs of the OBOS build
> system. Thus it seems to me like wasted work to change to another build
> tool, if there is no real need for it. The mere existence of other
> build tools really wouldn't hurt though.
> CU, Ingo

Other related posts: