This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz by Norman Richards. Original Post: Defending Ant Feed Title: Orb [norman richards] Feed URL: http://members.capmac.org/~orb/blog.cgi/tech/java?flav=rss Feed Description: Monkey number 312,978,199 Latest Java Buzz Posts Latest Java Buzz Posts by Norman Richards Latest Posts From Orb [norman richards]

Sam pointed me to some constructive criticism of Ant. There are many similar criticisms of Ant out there, most are less rational. Being a fan of both make and Ant, I usually find myself defending one to the fans of the other.

My first defense of Ant is to say that for Java, Ant is a better build tool than make. I pointed out in a prior entry , that the reason make is horrible for Java is more because of Java than make. But regardless of who is at fault, make is the wrong tool for building Java.

Ant works really well. The XML is easy. It's easy to read and easy to write. It keeps the build accessible to mid-level developers. All the common Java tasks you need are right there, and they work well. From compile to deploy, Ant has a solution. It just works.

I do have some complaints. I could complain about how hard it is to extend Ant. (Writing Java code to extend your build tool is just wrong) I could complain that it's extremely difficult to manage multiple projects with Ant using a common build system. I could complain that no matter how well I know how to use my Java tools, I can't write anything but a trivial build.xml without looking at the documentation or an existing build file. No matter what Ant's shortcomings are, there isn't any better solution out there.