that is the most convincing argument till now. :-) bye :-) Ashish Ranjan India [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/23/05, Graeme Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/21/2005 07:17:16 AM: > > > Andrey Chernyshev wrote: > > > On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>In the end we decided to go with a 'conventional' native code tool set > > >>for the native source, and 'conventional' Java code tools for the Java > > >>source. People just felt more comfortable with that. > > >> > > >>Do you think we are missing out on something ;-) ? > > > > > > > > > Well, I can see a few potential issues with such "mixed" approach: > > > - In order to contribute, people would have to learn both building > > > technologies - Ant and make, someone may give up. > > > > I don't see a great advantage to asking people to learn 'cpptask' rather > > than 'make'. I would suggest that many more C programmers are familiar > > with 'make' already, so we are not asking them to learn something new. > > > > [snip] > > 'make' also simplifies the bootstrapping issue. When you are doing the > initial port of the VM to a new platform, and you don't have java > running yet, having your build instructions encoded in Ant is problematic. > > Relying on the availability of a previous java port to get the Harmony > VM building seems like a questionable porting story. 'make' of one flavor > > or another is pretty much universally available, and seems like the > pragmatic choice for building C code. > > Graeme Johnson > J9 VM Team, IBM Canada. >
