Home » Language IDEs » C / C++ IDE (CDT) » Why make and not ant
|
| Re: Why make and not ant [message #3473 is a reply to message #3439] |
Wed, 12 December 2001 13:11   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: antti.case2000.com
If you did step trough the wizard it was asking what to use as make
gmake
was default, you can change it
antti
"shmuel siegel" <hard2@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:9v7kas$b9f$1@rogue.oti.com...
> When I try to rebuild my c++ project I see that the code tries to launch
> gmake. Is this going to change?
>
>
|
|
| |
| Re: Why make and not ant [message #4049 is a reply to message #3605] |
Wed, 12 December 2001 16:33 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: c4eclipse.nospam.ca.ibm.com
Shmuel,
We know there is lots of C and C++ code using make today. Many
complex builds use shell or perl scripts, too. We want to provide value for
those developers without requiring them to reengineer their builds - in
complex projects, hacking the build is often scarier than hacking the C - so
we will continue to provide the command-line build capability.
We also want builds to be able to run on a remote machine. Ant can do this,
but only if it doesn't depend on Eclipse project information. We have also
received feedback from users who don't like IDEs that "take over" their
source and lock them in, and that is another reason we want support builds
using external tools.
I think it is also true that Ant is really not targetted at C development.
It has lots of builtin and optional tasks for Java and XML (javac, jar, rmic,
javacc, ejb, junit ...) but nothing for gcc, gas, ld, ar. You would need to
construct each command line and "exec" them, is this really easier
to do with ant than with make?
Maybe you can help us answer some of these questions.
Are you using Ant to build C or C++ today?
What kind of integrated support would you find useful?
Brian Thomson
IBM
shmuel siegel wrote:
> I'll try again.
> I was wondering why the build process is using an external tool when eclipse
> itself provides ant as a build mechanism. Is the use of an external tool a
> temporary feature or will c++ always use a system make command.
>
> "Antti Lukats" <antti@case2000.com> wrote in message
> news:9v7kjn$bh5$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > If you did step trough the wizard it was asking what to use as make
> > gmake
> > was default, you can change it
> > antti
> >
> > "shmuel siegel" <hard2@writeme.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v7kas$b9f$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > When I try to rebuild my c++ project I see that the code tries to launch
> > > gmake. Is this going to change?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
|
|
|
| Re: Why make and not ant [message #4193 is a reply to message #4049] |
Wed, 12 December 2001 22:33 |
 David Goodenough
Messages: 157
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Brian Thomson wrote:
> Shmuel,
>
> We know there is lots of C and C++ code using make today. Many
> complex builds use shell or perl scripts, too. We want to provide value
> for those developers without requiring them to reengineer their builds -
> in complex projects, hacking the build is often scarier than hacking the C
> - so we will continue to provide the command-line build capability.
>
> We also want builds to be able to run on a remote machine. Ant can do
> this,
> but only if it doesn't depend on Eclipse project information. We have
> also received feedback from users who don't like IDEs that "take over"
> their source and lock them in, and that is another reason we want support
> builds using external tools.
>
> I think it is also true that Ant is really not targetted at C development.
> It has lots of builtin and optional tasks for Java and XML (javac, jar,
> rmic,
> javacc, ejb, junit ...) but nothing for gcc, gas, ld, ar. You would need
> to
> construct each command line and "exec" them, is this really easier
> to do with ant than with make?
>
> Maybe you can help us answer some of these questions.
> Are you using Ant to build C or C++ today?
> What kind of integrated support would you find useful?
>
> Brian Thomson
> IBM
>
> shmuel siegel wrote:
>
>> I'll try again.
>> I was wondering why the build process is using an external tool when
>> eclipse itself provides ant as a build mechanism. Is the use of an
>> external tool a temporary feature or will c++ always use a system make
>> command.
>>
>> "Antti Lukats" <antti@case2000.com> wrote in message
>> news:9v7kjn$bh5$1@rogue.oti.com...
>> > If you did step trough the wizard it was asking what to use as make
>> > gmake
>> > was default, you can change it
>> > antti
>> >
>> > "shmuel siegel" <hard2@writeme.com> wrote in message
>> > news:9v7kas$b9f$1@rogue.oti.com...
>> > > When I try to rebuild my c++ project I see that the code tries to
>> > > launch gmake. Is this going to change?
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
There has been much discussion of C and C++ tasks for Ant on the Ant
discussion list. I think, but I have not followed it up, that there
are such tasks, at least in prototype currently available. I guess
that as these are firmed up and added formally to Ant that it will be
necessary to include them here (but as an option). For pure C/C++
projects I can see that using make etc is the norm and forcing the
use of Ant would merely alienate some potential users, but for work
such as JNI code which is part of a larger Java project then I think
that Ant would be better. For the rest it will a mix, and so provision
needs to be made for both (oh dear, more coding required).
|
|
|
| Re: Why make and not ant [message #4333 is a reply to message #4049] |
Thu, 13 December 2001 10:54 |
shmuel siegel
Messages: 75
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Brian,
Of course nobody can argue with the idea of providing backward compatibility
with existing projects. I also agree with those users who complain that an
IDE often gets in the way especially when the source code is not "c" but
something like yacc. I am not qualified to discuss the relative merits of
make and ant since I have never deliberately used ant, my Java IDE's did it
for me.
That said, your response leaves me wondering if the CDT and JDT developers
are talking to each other. The JDT seems perfectly willing to impose
development standards on its users ( witness the threads in eclipse.tools
that discuss filesystem hierarchy, sharing of source between projects, using
alternative Java compilers, etc.) I had come to expect that the CDT would
be self contained and was therefore surprised to see dependencies on make,
gcc, adb, ld etc. This will certainly make it harder to have a cross
platform system. It also leaves me wondering what the plans are for mixed
language development.
I don't really care what tools you use behind the scenes, provided that they
exist on my development machine. What would really interest me more than
just another C++ IDE would be strong integration between the java and C++
worlds. The framework could provide the necessary interfacing to allow java
to call c and c to call java. The framework would then be able to do some
fairly fancy debugging (please don't ask me how). As a developer in a
changing world, and in particular, one that needs to develop for many
platforms, the ability to do incremental ports between the two languages
would be fantastic. Am I just dreaming?
"Brian Thomson" <c4eclipse@nospam.ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3C1786CE.D166212F@nospam.ca.ibm.com...
> Shmuel,
>
> We know there is lots of C and C++ code using make today. Many
> complex builds use shell or perl scripts, too. We want to provide value
for
> those developers without requiring them to reengineer their builds - in
> complex projects, hacking the build is often scarier than hacking the C -
so
> we will continue to provide the command-line build capability.
>
> We also want builds to be able to run on a remote machine. Ant can do
this,
> but only if it doesn't depend on Eclipse project information. We have
also
> received feedback from users who don't like IDEs that "take over" their
> source and lock them in, and that is another reason we want support builds
> using external tools.
> .........
> Brian Thomson
> IBM
>
|
|
|
| Re: Why make and not ant [message #6730 is a reply to message #4333] |
Sat, 15 December 2001 00:09 |
C4Eclipse Team
Messages: 65
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Shmuel,
I don't discount the value of language IDEs built on Eclipse, and fully expect to
see many of them as developers warm up to the platform and learn what it can
do. But I do agree that you get the most out of an integration platform when
you integrate things, and the combinations of language support create new
opportunities.
Rather than starting with the build, I'd be more likely to "drewl" over seamless
debugging across the Java/C boundary. So, we are aware of the possibilities,
but in case we missed any please don't hold back with your ideas.
Regarding CDT not being self contained, remember that we are just a component.
The solution involves us, plus Eclipse, a JRE, and a Linux system. That combination
provides all the pieces you need (maybe the Linux distributors on the Eclipse board
are listening?)
Brian
shmuel siegel wrote:
> Brian,
> Of course nobody can argue with the idea of providing backward compatibility
> with existing projects. I also agree with those users who complain that an
> IDE often gets in the way especially when the source code is not "c" but
> something like yacc. I am not qualified to discuss the relative merits of
> make and ant since I have never deliberately used ant, my Java IDE's did it
> for me.
> That said, your response leaves me wondering if the CDT and JDT developers
> are talking to each other. The JDT seems perfectly willing to impose
> development standards on its users ( witness the threads in eclipse.tools
> that discuss filesystem hierarchy, sharing of source between projects, using
> alternative Java compilers, etc.) I had come to expect that the CDT would
> be self contained and was therefore surprised to see dependencies on make,
> gcc, adb, ld etc. This will certainly make it harder to have a cross
> platform system. It also leaves me wondering what the plans are for mixed
> language development.
> I don't really care what tools you use behind the scenes, provided that they
> exist on my development machine. What would really interest me more than
> just another C++ IDE would be strong integration between the java and C++
> worlds. The framework could provide the necessary interfacing to allow java
> to call c and c to call java. The framework would then be able to do some
> fairly fancy debugging (please don't ask me how). As a developer in a
> changing world, and in particular, one that needs to develop for many
> platforms, the ability to do incremental ports between the two languages
> would be fantastic. Am I just dreaming?
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jul 27 12:48:27 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04014 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
