Peter Donald wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 01:55, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> > Pete, once again you've amazed me by dropping into sarcastic tones and
> > some false sense of superiority when responding to a reasonable email.
>
> And I am constantly amazed by the people who gather to insult me after it. It
> seems to give them some sort of satisfaction to chastize that baffoon Pete.
I only do it when your responses warrant it.
> > IMO, anyone
> > that is responsible for setting up a build system HAS to understand some
> > level of programming and simple flow control is readily understandable.
>
> Well luckily I don't see that. Considering that most of the build files I
> have setup are for people who think Javascript+HTML is programming ...
Hmm, last time I checked javascript has flow control and looping.
> ...snip rant...
I didn't realize that arguments stating that flow control is not complex
and that some of the ant idioms are was a rant.
> > And I disagree that telling us to go learn another language/system is a
> > reasonable solution to iteration. Basic iteration, which will probably
> > cover 90% of the needs I've seen discussed on this list, is trivial to
> > implement directly within ant.
>
> thats nice. So what about that 10% who aren't covered?
In those cases, the right answer may be to roll your own task. No
solution will ever cover all cases. The goal should be to address the
majority of the needs with a consistent framework.
The number of times that I've seen requests for it/then and looping in
ant indicates that it is a basic need.
I still can't understand how you can claim that if/them and looping are
too complex and then turn around and suggest we use XSLT instead. How
is that less complex?
> > Now, hopefully, I'll get some other response than sarcasm or
> > condescension.
>
> nope. You haven't added anything new to conversation, nothing that wasn't
> already known and your comments are laced with the superiority complex that I
> seem to have.
No, just a significant amount of frustration.
[I'm drawing text from another response of yours to this same thread]
You claim that Peter Vogel is "just droning the same stuff". How many
people need to drone the same request before ant-dev considers it a
reasonable request? The diversions you provide into natural language
theory are interesting, but don't have much relevance to the topic at
hand.
You state: "I am a believer in doing one thing well. Currently ant does
too many scripty things and encourages too many bad practices. These
will hopefully be eliminated in ant2 but who can tell at this stage."
I question, then, what is it that ant is supposed to do well? I had
thought is was a build management system. How does adding flow control
(which a number of people have stated is needed for build management)
somehow break the purity of ant. I know that I'm repeating a previous
statement, but what good is a "pure" tool that doesn't address the needs
of the community it is supposed to serve?
> > In fact, I'd like to hear from the other commiters, or is Pete speaking
> > for the group on this issue?
>
> probably not but there only needs to be one -1 ;)
Which, IMO, is the real problem.
--
Larry V. Streepy, Jr.
Chief Technical Officer and VP of Engineering
Health Language, Inc. -- "We speak the language of healthcare"
970/626-5028 (office) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
970/626-4425 (fax) http://www.healthlanguage.com
