Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote:Hmmm--I suppose I should have been clearer. I'm in favour of
> I'm amazed that we're debating the value of a declarative
> specification. It's very hard (nigh impossible) to accurately assess
> the origins of others' opinions, but I can only suspect that knocking
> declarative builds (as imperfect and flawed as the current
> implementations of those are) comes from an insufficient regard of
> history, namely make and ant in this case. I've used them, abused
> them, and thankfully forgotten much about them – but their approach is
> not made better simply because it's been implemented in Clojure.
declarative builds, (obviously, all Clojure build tools are
declarative at heart), it's the 100% no-compromises declarative that
I'm not fond of. I'm using the term "dynamism" to refer to what Antony
seems to be railing against--the notion that you can have an escape
hatch and put executable code in your build configuration.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.