« Return to Thread: suggestion : Ant 1.8 full dist to include a 'scripting lang'
Re: Re: suggestion : Ant 1.8 full dist to include a 'scripting lang'
by foamdino
::
Rate this Message:
> > Personally I think we should at least consider including a 'script'
> > language with the full dist (starting from 1.8) so that scriptdef
> > isn't a lame duck out of the box.
>
> Biggest problem might be that the language needs to be license
> compatible.
Yes I can see this as a problem - sorry didn't consider it before.
>
> > I also think that a lot of the code in the current optional tasks
> > could be re-written using scriptdefs instead and provided as an
> > antlib. This would keep the core in Java, but move the more
> > 'scripty' style of tasks into a more appropriate tool/lang
>
> I'm not convinced that script languages are more appropriate 8-)
>
fair enough - I knew that this would be the more controversial
suggestion anyway!
> > Downsides are of course that the implementation language of Ant
> > changes (core in Java, some optional tasks implemented as scriptdefs
> > + a. n. other language).
> >
> > Anyway, please post flames in 3..2..1
>
> Not a flame. Even though I personally don't like the idea of
> replacing existing tasks, I wouldn't stand in the way.
>
> But an observation. Gump used to be written in Java and XSLT. It was
> re-written in Python because Python seemed to be more appropriate and
> Gump might attract developers from the non-Java parts of the ASF. The
> result today is that the number of active developers has dropped from
> about two to about zero.
>
I also think that some Apache projects simply don't care about Gump
(Maven uses continuum for example). As a data point it's important to
note that the python re-write didn't attract more developers - having
said that if you wanted apache developers I would have thought perl
would have been the safer language (given mod_perl et al).
> If we chose a "standard" scripting language for Ant, it means the Ant
> developer community must feel comfortable with it. Comfortable enough
> to be able to maintain and review the code.
>
I think if the consensus is that a scripting language for vm should be
shipped with the dist of Ant, then we can have the discussion over
which one at that point - ie cross that bridge when we come to it ;)
Having just said that :
Sun hires JRuby developers :
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/58c02b63e2c61d21/26c2b6864513c192?lnk=gst&q=Sun+JRuby&rnum=1#26c2b6864513c192
Which is obviously causing a great deal of discussion in the ruby community.
Kev
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
> > language with the full dist (starting from 1.8) so that scriptdef
> > isn't a lame duck out of the box.
>
> Biggest problem might be that the language needs to be license
> compatible.
Yes I can see this as a problem - sorry didn't consider it before.
>
> > I also think that a lot of the code in the current optional tasks
> > could be re-written using scriptdefs instead and provided as an
> > antlib. This would keep the core in Java, but move the more
> > 'scripty' style of tasks into a more appropriate tool/lang
>
> I'm not convinced that script languages are more appropriate 8-)
>
fair enough - I knew that this would be the more controversial
suggestion anyway!
> > Downsides are of course that the implementation language of Ant
> > changes (core in Java, some optional tasks implemented as scriptdefs
> > + a. n. other language).
> >
> > Anyway, please post flames in 3..2..1
>
> Not a flame. Even though I personally don't like the idea of
> replacing existing tasks, I wouldn't stand in the way.
>
> But an observation. Gump used to be written in Java and XSLT. It was
> re-written in Python because Python seemed to be more appropriate and
> Gump might attract developers from the non-Java parts of the ASF. The
> result today is that the number of active developers has dropped from
> about two to about zero.
>
I also think that some Apache projects simply don't care about Gump
(Maven uses continuum for example). As a data point it's important to
note that the python re-write didn't attract more developers - having
said that if you wanted apache developers I would have thought perl
would have been the safer language (given mod_perl et al).
> If we chose a "standard" scripting language for Ant, it means the Ant
> developer community must feel comfortable with it. Comfortable enough
> to be able to maintain and review the code.
>
I think if the consensus is that a scripting language for vm should be
shipped with the dist of Ant, then we can have the discussion over
which one at that point - ie cross that bridge when we come to it ;)
Having just said that :
Sun hires JRuby developers :
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/58c02b63e2c61d21/26c2b6864513c192?lnk=gst&q=Sun+JRuby&rnum=1#26c2b6864513c192
Which is obviously causing a great deal of discussion in the ruby community.
Kev
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
« Return to Thread: suggestion : Ant 1.8 full dist to include a 'scripting lang'
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |