Apache Ant vs Make

Overview

Apache Ant

Stacks250

Followers151

Votes7

GitHub Stars449

Forks449

Make

Stacks323

Followers129

Votes1

Apache Ant vs Make: What are the differences?

Introduction

Apache Ant and Make are both build automation tools that are used to compile and build software projects. However, there are several key differences between the two.

Language: Apache Ant is written in XML while Make uses a domain-specific language. This means that Ant builds are defined using XML tags, making it more readable and easier to understand. On the other hand, Make uses a script-like language that can be more flexible but also more complex to work with.
Platform Independence: Apache Ant is platform-independent, meaning that build scripts written in Ant can be executed on any operating system. Make, on the other hand, was originally designed for Unix-like systems and may require modifications to work on different platforms.
Dependency Management: Ant has built-in support for dependency management, allowing developers to specify dependencies between different parts of the build process. Make, on the other hand, requires manual dependency tracking, which can be time-consuming and error-prone.
Task Execution Model: Ant's task execution model is based on the concept of targets, which define a set of tasks to be executed. Make, on the other hand, uses a different model where tasks are defined as dependencies of other tasks. This can lead to differences in how build scripts are written and executed.
Ease of Use: Ant is often considered easier to use and to set up compared to Make. This is partly because Ant's build scripts are written in XML, which can be more intuitive for developers who are already familiar with HTML or other markup languages. Make, on the other hand, requires developers to learn a new scripting language.
Community and Documentation: Ant has a larger and more active community compared to Make, which means that there are more resources and support available. Ant also has comprehensive documentation and a wide range of plugins and tools that can be used to extend its functionality. Make, on the other hand, may have fewer resources and support options available.

In Summary, Apache Ant and Make have key differences in their language, platform independence, dependency management, task execution model, ease of use, and community support.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

Apache Ant	Make
Ant is a Java-based build tool. In theory, it is kind of like Make, without Make's wrinkles and with the full portability of pure Java code.	The GNU Compiler Collection and GNU Toolchain (Binutils, GDB, GLIBC)
The most complete Java build and deployment tool available.;Platform neutral and can handle platform specific properties such as file separators;Can be used to perform platform specific tasks such as modifying the modified time of a file using 'touch' command;Scripts are written using plain XML. If you are already familiar with XML, you can learn pretty quickly;Automate complicated repetitive tasks;Interface to develop custom tasks;Can be easily invoked from the command line and it can integrate with free and commercial IDEs	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars 449	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 449	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 250	Stacks 323
Followers 151	Followers 129
Votes 7	Votes 1
Pros & Cons
Pros 4 Flexible 1 Simple 1 Easy to learn 1 Easy to write own java-build-hooks Cons 1 Slow 1 Old and not widely used anymore	Pros 1 No-nonsense approach to builds. Just works 0 One-line Execution

What are some alternatives to Apache Ant, Make?

Apache Maven

Maven allows a project to build using its project object model (POM) and a set of plugins that are shared by all projects using Maven, providing a uniform build system. Once you familiarize yourself with how one Maven project builds you automatically know how all Maven projects build saving you immense amounts of time when trying to navigate many projects.

Gradle

Gradle is a build tool with a focus on build automation and support for multi-language development. If you are building, testing, publishing, and deploying software on any platform, Gradle offers a flexible model that can support the entire development lifecycle from compiling and packaging code to publishing web sites.

Bazel

Bazel is a build tool that builds code quickly and reliably. It is used to build the majority of Google's software, and thus it has been designed to handle build problems present in Google's development environment.

Telosys

It is an Open Source code generator. It generates the plumbing and repetitive code for any kind of language. It has been designed to be light and very simple to use.

Pants

Pants is a build system for Java, Scala and Python. It works particularly well for a source code repository that contains many distinct projects.

JitPack

JitPack is an easy to use package repository for Gradle/Sbt and Maven projects. We build GitHub projects on demand and provides ready-to-use packages.

SBT

It is similar to Java's Maven and Ant. Its main features are: Native support for compiling Scala code and integrating with many Scala test frameworks.

Buck

Buck encourages the creation of small, reusable modules consisting of code and resources, and supports a variety of languages on many platforms.

Optic

Optic is an open-source tool that automatically documents and tests your API. It makes it easy to keep your API specification and code in sync and automates your contract testing.

Please

Please is a cross-language build system with an emphasis on high performance, extensibility and reproduceability. It supports a number of popular languages and can automate nearly any aspect of your build process.

Related Comparisons

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

Postman vs Swagger UI

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Apache Ant vs Make: What are the differences?

Introduction

Apache Ant and Make are both build automation tools that are used to compile and build software projects. However, there are several key differences between the two.

Language: Apache Ant is written in XML while Make uses a domain-specific language. This means that Ant builds are defined using XML tags, making it more readable and easier to understand. On the other hand, Make uses a script-like language that can be more flexible but also more complex to work with.
Platform Independence: Apache Ant is platform-independent, meaning that build scripts written in Ant can be executed on any operating system. Make, on the other hand, was originally designed for Unix-like systems and may require modifications to work on different platforms.
Dependency Management: Ant has built-in support for dependency management, allowing developers to specify dependencies between different parts of the build process. Make, on the other hand, requires manual dependency tracking, which can be time-consuming and error-prone.
Task Execution Model: Ant's task execution model is based on the concept of targets, which define a set of tasks to be executed. Make, on the other hand, uses a different model where tasks are defined as dependencies of other tasks. This can lead to differences in how build scripts are written and executed.
Ease of Use: Ant is often considered easier to use and to set up compared to Make. This is partly because Ant's build scripts are written in XML, which can be more intuitive for developers who are already familiar with HTML or other markup languages. Make, on the other hand, requires developers to learn a new scripting language.
Community and Documentation: Ant has a larger and more active community compared to Make, which means that there are more resources and support available. Ant also has comprehensive documentation and a wide range of plugins and tools that can be used to extend its functionality. Make, on the other hand, may have fewer resources and support options available.

In Summary, Apache Ant and Make have key differences in their language, platform independence, dependency management, task execution model, ease of use, and community support.