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. david ----- 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 > > > > >