Obviously we are starting the discussion 8-) I'll try to make this move a little bit more formal within the next hour or so - two or three commits are still needed and CVS is extremely slow ATM.
Bill Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I'd like to see in Ant 2.0 is a much more thought out > declarative language for the XML build control files that stays > firmly within the non procedural programming paradigm. If at all possible I'd say. Added it to the list, in two flavors with a "purist" version in the "controversial" corner of the list. Personally I think we should review the use cases people are trying to solve with procedural approaches very closely - if we can come up with a non-procedural approach that is easy, great! If not, well than there seems to be some room for procedural stuff. > 3. Lower the traffic on ant-user and ant-dev initiated by people who > think that all languages must be somehow procedural in order to be > useful and that all those who think otherwise are hopeless purists Well, those "procedural purists" are a real pain, aren't they ;-) These guys are a real "thought police" when they try to enforce their view of the world ... I'm kidding here, Bill. Let's just try to keep dogmatism - any flavor of it - out of our discussion. > who must be worked around by hosting external Ant tasks on > SourceForge. Well, this is OK IMHO - not making this stuff available to others looks worse to me. Stefan
