A Build system with .NET devs as its Primary Target Audience that is does not have an XML-only Syntax?
Good question... for simple build scripts, there's no reason. But when things get hairy, it helps to have the cleanest possible syntax and access to higher levels of abstraction. Why aren't any major programming languages (Java, C#, etc) rendered in XML syntax?
Alan Hensel
2009-06-16 16:17:47
A:
I use actual Ruby Rake, just invoke the power of msbuild through your Rake script.
It's quite simple and much better than the XML alternatives in my opinion.
Garry Shutler
2009-03-10 14:08:57
+6
A:
- Boo build system (uses Boo)
- Phantom (another one that uses Boo)
- PSake (uses PowerShell)
- FAKE (uses F#)
Mauricio Scheffer
2009-03-10 14:09:08
A:
There is also UppercuT - which uses conventions to do the building, so it is not necessary to look at that XML syntax.
ferventcoder
2009-05-16 19:16:31
A:
You should definitely try NUBuild.
I am a developer and I uses it on a regular basis and I work with around 75 projects that I need to build with every code change/release. It has saved me huge amount of time by allowing me to find build failures locally and lot earlier in the development cycle and not after I have checked in my code.
NUBuild is extremely fast, easy to setup (you do it only once) and gives you the power of a complete build server at your fingertip by letting you do 'local builds'. You do not have to write 'dense' xml scripts. There is only one simple configuration file you need to create while setting it up (Refer the user guide). It also has lots of other advance features and functionalities. You can find more detail on the project site (on codeplex):
A:
Check out rake-dotnet too: http://github.com/petemounce/rake-dotnet
I'm just about to give this a go!
Perhentian
2009-10-09 16:01:29