|Newer page:||version 10||Last edited on Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:29:02 pm||by MattBrown|
|Older page:||version 8||Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 12:53:10 pm||by JamieFlournoy||Revert|
@@ -24,11 +24,11 @@
# Ant is significantly more efficient than make for java-oriented things since they can be done without a fork(2) and without starting a new [JVM].
Benefits of make
# Because make has been around since 1972, most developers are familar with it.
-# Because make has been around since 1972, most development support applications (editors, IDE's, etc) have robust, built-in support for make
+# Because make has been around since 1972, most development support applications (editors, IDE's, etc) have robust, built-in support for make
# Because make has been around since 1972, many established projects use make
# make will run anywhere the [Shell] will run.
# since make runs shell commands, you get all the power of the CommandLine interface. It doesn't really matter that make doesn't natively support bzip2, since you can pipe stuff to/from bzip2 in true unix fashion.
# Make doesn't depend on non-Free software such as a java runtime environment (which is also a fairly hefty download).
A dependency on the java runtime environment is not necessarily any better than a dependency on a ([UNIX]/[Linux]) shell. It is no better in an absolute or technical sense, but it is __different__. There are situations (and projects) for which one is clearly better than the other. Using/demanding [Ant] and [Java] in all situations is no better than using/demanding make(1) and sh(1) in all situations, and if those running the project are unable or unwilling to evaluate where one is needed and one is to be avoided, there's probably not much hope for the project anyway. ---- StuartYeates