Are there any differences between the original CruiseControl and the .NET port? I've compared the 2, but can't find any big differences except the language it has been developed in. I want to use either one of them for (automated) testing of web applications, using Selenium and Subversion, perhaps even Groovy but don't know which to choose.
[edit]
After looking at CC and Hudson, I've chosen Hudson for it's simplicity, it already has plugins to run Groovy scripts and Selenium as well
Choose me, choose me! (I work on the original CruiseControl.)
I've never used CC.NET but from what I know I agree that they are pretty comparable. Probably the most important difference is cross-platform vs. Windows only.
Now I wonder how long until someone comes by and says their both crap and you should try Hudson? ;)
(And of course there are lots of other choices...)
CruiseControl.NET (cc.net henceforth) has build queues (http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/CCNET/Project+Configuration+Block), which allows you to serialize builds that depends on a certain build order. I'm in the process of emulating this behavior in the java version of cruisecontrol but the functionality doesn't map one to one. The reason however, that I'm at all moving from the .net to the java version is that the .net version core dumps with mono (cc.net nightly build and mono nightly build as of two months ago). The fault lies with monos thread handling but voids attempts to get cc.net up and running.
The documentation on this can be tricky to find, if you don't notice the version numbers that the configuration examples/documentation adhere to (confluence.public.thoughtworks.org has the updated configuration documentation whereas ccnet.sourceforge.net has not. I know that the ccnet is most likely a dead site, but if your're not carefully reading the datestamps on every page you're visiting, this may bite you).
Furthermore, the sourcecontrol blocks for cvs and svn in cc.net are more granular and featurerich than their counterpart in the java version, but this has not been a problem in my work. The java version is also easy to extend/modify re: plugin behavior, but you would really just like to see this kind of work going upstream instead of forking.
I'm fairly impressed with both the java version and the fork in .net (modulo mono runtime behavior), but you really do not want to try any of the other forks of cruisecontrol. I've had peripheral experience with hudson, and the features were just not compelling enough to veer me from cruisecontrol. Hudson has a (somewhat coloured) comparison map of Hudson and CruiseControl (java) at http://hudson.gotdns.com/wiki/display/HUDSON/Home
A viable alternative is the python implemented buildbot (http://buildbot.net/trac). It does not have fancy gui dashboards and the setup is somewhat more commandline-bound, but if you're doing distributed builds, it's very easy to set up and get running.
I think for you it will come down to operating system, original can run on nix, and .net version runs on windows.
There are other automated build utilities that can do this as well, such as TeamCity in the windows space, and cruisecontrol.rb in the ruby world.
Also there is a PowerShell based build utility called pSake that can poll subversion and perform tasks.
Related
Firstly, I saw some topics about these two but weren't my answer.
I'm looking for a good FPC(Free Pascal Compiler) IDE on GNU/Linux.
There are some IDE's like Lazarus and CodeTyphon. I need suggestion to choose one of those.
I've tried Lazarus once but all windows was separated. It looks messy and not interesting.
I would like to know what are the distinguishes between these two ?
I would like to know advantages / disadvantages each of those. Thank you
CodeTyphon is a distro of Lazarus, like Ubuntu and Debian are distros of Linux.
CodeTyphon comes with a large package of components and plugins, that otherwise you would have to google and download and install.
CodeTyphon have their own idea what are stable versions and what are not stable yet for both of FPC (compiler) and Lazarus(IDE). Whether their assessment is better or worse than upstream's Lazarus Team's, I don't know.
What about one-single-window plugin, it is work-in-progress and it doesn't seems to me it is ready for production use, no matter would you get it as part of CT or download and add it to vanilla Lazarus. However maybe it better works on Linux than on Windows, I don't know.
There were however issues with code legality in CT grande bundle. It is widely believed that Orca (if I remember the name) violates copyrights of glScene/vgScene, which also happened in early Delphi FMX releases but was fixed by EMBA later. There also were disputes in FPC forums/wiki about CodeTyphon pirating some open-source components. See answer by Peter Dunne below.
Your question is akin to asking the difference between Linux and Ubuntu. Lazarus is an IDE/component library, based on FreePascal (FPC). And CodeTyphon is a distribution of Lazarus and FPC. So CodeTyphon is just one way to install a functioning installation of Lazarus.
Lazarus uses the same floating window design as older versions of Delphi. Installing from CodeTyphon won't change that.
Myself and several friends highlighted several licensing issues with codetyphon
most of which could have been corrected by sourcing the included files from known good source and ensuring the correct license headers were included
PirateLogic refused to correct the issues which means they are using code in direct violation of the original license terms
The fact its open source code does not change the fact they are pirating the code by not including the correct license even after the issue was highlighted
I also found several instances of copyright code included which appears to be proprietary and not FOSS at all
They also changed the path & file names on some libraries so that source is no longer compatible with standard lazarus/component installs
This in my view is totally illogical
These 2 factors heavily undermine what was potentially the best FPC/Lazarus distro
Hardly professional
Lazarus can be a daunting installation process due to it's nature as a cross compiling environment. You don't just download an installer and click ok. A typical "installation" is actually a bootstrap FPC compiler doing a three-pass compilation of an "install". There are plenty of good installation scripts/methods from the official Lazarus/FPC team and in the community for a . But, understandably, the installation process is a skill in itself.
CodeTyphon is a a different/separate branch of an installer system, which is more of a utility suite/tools/third party code compilation library. If you want the simplest installation experience go with CodeTyphon. It has the nice graphical front end for managing the compiler. You can conveniently do the fancy stuff like build "cross-compilers" for almost every "target" operating system out there. It also is jam packed with hundreds of the best components/libraries pre-installed. It is a very actively maintained project and very professional. A whole lot of work is done for you.
Even if you want to be learn the low level compiler capabilities, CodeTyphon is a good place to start. It is written in FCP/Lazarus and is open source. Simply study it as "working demo app" and the other info on the compiler details. If you crash it, at least you don't have to learn to climb the hill. You get to get to start from the top and lose control on the way down. Start from scratch (and a three hour reinstallation) Hahaha
Lazarus also has a package "AnchorDock" which allows you to dock all the windows into one. Either install the anchor dock design package after installing Lazarus, or install Lazarus using the script at getlazarus.org which will do it for you.
I have a friend who is was a serious Linux developer but now he's working with C# on Windows and is really loving it. I'm attracted to C# because, like Java, I should be able to compile on one system and run anywhere.
If you are developing on Windows with C#, you're using dot-Net. On Linux and MacOS, you're using Mono.
Other people have posted that Mono is pretty good, no longer a science project, and that most of the core Microsoft functionality is present. But that's not really getting at the questions that I have. I'm wondering:
How does performance of Mono on Linux/MacOS rate against Java? If I want to run fast on all three platforms with the same object code, what's my best choice?
Is it easy/possible/reasonable to use Mono with makefiles and do my development with emacs?
Is there support for code factoring in MacOS and Linux, or am I better off just biting the bullet and doing all of my development in Windows?
How well does Mono work with Subversion and the rest of the open source development stack? How about autoconf? Or is this a completely different way of doing things?
Thanks
I have been using Mono on Linux for about three years and lately have been using it on OS X. Some of the Linux stuff was pretty extensive but the OS X stuff has just been some simple ASP.NET MVC2 apps so far.
1) Performance of Mono has never been an issue for me. That is not to say that performance has not been important, it is just that the performance of Mono itself has never been an issue. A lot of what I have done is web based so I/O and database memory use have hit me before Mono has.
Historically, the biggest deficiency with Mono has been the Garbage Collector (GC). I would say that Java is better tuned in this regard. The most recent versions of Mono have made huge strides in this area but I do not have any hard numbers for you in terms of comparisons.
I am sure Mono is faster sometimes and Java sometimes but I would say that Java is faster overall.
2) You can certainly do Mono development with makefiles. Certainly the Mono team itself does. Also you can certainly use Emacs and there is a C# mode for it.
I tend to use MonoDevelop and xbuild (Mono version of msbuild) myself and do not have any experience doing C# work in Emacs. MonoDevelop is great because it is exactly the same on all platforms. Also, although I rarely use it anymore, it is nice that the project format is the same as Visual Studio and SharpDevelop.
3) MonoDevelop has pretty decent code factoring support. It is the same on Windows, Linux, and Mac. You do not need to use Windows for development (though you certainly can) but I believe you will be happier using an IDE like MonoDevelop. Even things like Intellisense become hard to live without once you are used to them. But integrated debugging, being able to drill-down into the framework, database integration, unit testing, SCM integration, and other nice tooling support all in one place is just the way to go (for me at least).
4) Mono itself does not care about version control of course. Your source files are just text and you could use anything to manage them.
That said, MonoDevelop has fantastic Subversion support built right into the IDE. I have used it extensively and it is one of the reasons I have trouble moving off MonoDevelop even on Windows. The latest version of MonoDevelop (2.6 beta) includes Git support as well.
You did not mention unit testing but MonoDevelop also has NUnit support built into the IDE. I use that on every project as well and it works excellently. The version in MonoDevelop is 2.4.8 (if memory serves) so it is not quite current but it works great.
In a nutshell, Mono works really well with Open Source tooling in general. It has always played really well for me.
Autoconf is of course used by the Mono project itself but, as a Mono developer, I have never seen a need for it. I strive to only use managed code in my projects. As such, all I need on the target platform is Mono (or .NET). Not having to worry about all that stuff is one of the primary benefits of a managed environment like Mono or Java. The runtime itself (the CLR) ensures that my app has everything it needs to function properly.
I know that MonoDevelop will build autoconf/autorun files for C/C++ projects (non-Mono) but I have not done much with it myself.
As to a previous comment, the Mono JIT is obviously tuned to the target platform. That is where platform specific performance tuning happens.
Just as a comment, I find that Mono is best viewed as a development environment in it's own right rather than a compatibility layer for Microsoft stuff. The Mono team has extended .NET in many interesting ways. Anything you develop for Mono will run on .NET but there are some .NET features not available for Mono. For example, Mono does not support Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF). You have to use Windows Forms or GTK# for cross-platform GUI work. You can also use something like Cocoa# or MonoMac on the Mac, MonoTouch on iPhone, or MonoDroid for Android. You can use Moonlight instead of Silverlight as well although I have not played with it much.
One more thing since you asked about Java. I have found a few times that the Java world had libraries that I could not find equivalents for in the .NET world. In these cases, I have had amazing luck using IKVM.NET to integrate this into my Mono apps. IKVM.NET also works on .NET but Mono and IKVM.NET are very cozy and even share some code.
So there you go, one real answer for you at least.
At home, I use CTRL+SHIFT+B or F7 or whatever key sequence initiates the build for my build tool. At work, this doesn't quite cut it.
At my first job (an internship) we used a product called Visual Build, which I have come to like very much. It's the best build tool I've ever worked with. The down side here is that it's not free.
At my latest job, I came in knowing literally nothing about Ant. Now, unfortunately, I've become deeply involved in our build processes, and cannot extricate myself. It works, yes, but after coming from Visual build, it seems like it's fighting me every step of the way. Yes, it's free, but we're not trying to be a free-software-only development company or anything.
I've never looked in to make or any other build tools, so I don't really know what else is out there.
Has anybody ever seen or had experience with Visual Build? Mostly I'm fond of a few key things:
it has a GUI
it runs arbitrary VBScript without the need of a compiled class
you can step through the build process, or start from anywhere in the middle.
Are there any free build tools that have this? Is there any way to convince people that it's worth it to move on? It's 2008. We use IDEs to develop, why not (IBEs) to build?
Edit: I'm mostly looking for an answer to my last questions; Is there a solution with a built-in GUI that I can use for free?
Not very sophisticated, but we use a set of batch files. And that works great.
We use FinalBuilder - I think it's very similar to VisualBuild, though I've not used the latter.
It does run from the command line, and you can integrate it with CC.Net if you want.
For Java projects we use Teamcity, sort of cruise control like, but you can also do a remote run, i.e. you send your changes to the server, it builds and does unit tests, if everything works ok, THEN you checkin, very nice build tool and free for up to 20 build configurations.
For our Visual Studio 2005 projects including packaging the final exes and dlls with InstallShield and putting them up on a shared server we use Final Builder, it's not free, but it is very easy to use and get started with.
We also telnet out (from FinalBuilder) to a number of other platforms (Unix/Linux/OpenVMS) and start remote builds by running makefiles there.
We do not use continous build, but there is a FinalBuilder Server which handles that and comes free with the FinalBuilder Professional license.
We are very happy with FinalBuilder, it's quite easy to get up to speed with and powerful enough to solve most problems.
CMake. Generates build file for KDevelop, Eclipse, Makefiles and Visual Studio (and XCode), and it really works. You can easily extend it with macros, although the programming capabilities are rather limited. It's easy to learn, and porting an existing application from Visual Studio to it is pretty easy. However, you are limited to C++/C and IIRC Fortran code.
KDE is also using CMake now, so it seems to scale very well (i.e. generation time for the projects/dependency checking is not too bad).
I am not sure this is exactly what you are looking for, but I LOVE CruiseControl.NET. I have it build my projects using the MSBuild task. It doesn't have a GUI exactly, but there is a web interface to view the results of your builds and a System Tray resident program which will alert you of the build status.
UppercuT. It's free.
UppercuT uses NAnt to build and it is the insanely easy to use Build Framework.
Automated Builds as easy as (1) solution name, (2) source control path, (3) company name for most projects!!!
http://code.google.com/p/uppercut/
Some good explanations here: UppercuT
Going back to the keystrokes thing for a sec, I found Hoekey which the CTO loves. I don't use it myself, but as a way of assign keystrokes to things, it's pretty good.
I know nothing of Visual Build, but from your description it sounds like it is tied to Windows and doesn't run from the command line.
If you are building Java software (I assume you are since you are using Ant), it's preferable to have a cross-platform tool. If you can run the tool from the command-line, then it is scriptable which is extremely important for automation.
Ant is also extensible and a de facto standard. Many tools that you may use (Cobertura, TestNG, etc.) provide Ant tasks so that they can easily be intergrated with your build.
I use Ant for all Java projects. Some people prefer Maven, but I'm not one of them. Ant is far from perfect (the XML syntax is a bit clunky) but it is well documented, extremely stable and pretty straightforward.
If you use a standard tool, such as Ant or Maven, you will be able to take advantage of any number of Continuous Integration products. I doubt you will find many that work with Visual Build.
Most IDEs support Ant, so they give you a GUI of sorts and your CI server will give you a web interface for doing builds.
NAnt (.NET port of Ant). Works great and is easily extensible.
For small projects I do use post-build scripts and with the support of 7z, Nsis and similar CLI tools it's doing the job perfectly for me.
TeamCity and CuriseControl works well for any projects,but here is why you would like to choose TeamCity:-
Ease of setup: During setup we found TeamCity easier to setup and use especially compared to CruiseControl. We did not need to edit XML files or massively configure individual build machines like CruiseControl.
Ease of extensibility:TeamCity stands out in its ease of extensibility too. If we find that builds are waiting in the queue too long, we can add more computers as agents. The only additional work on our end is registering the new computers with the TeamCity server and installing msbuild and subversion.
Interaction with Subversion: One can check how many and what changes were committed to subversion since the last build, who started a build etc.
I've grown very fond of scons for building C++ files. It's very straightforward and the build scripts are written in Python (which is much better than some hacked together DSL IMO).
Ant or Maven are great little build tools.
And if you want to automate the build process there are some great tools like TeamCity and Bamboo.
Personally I use Makefiles for pretty much everything because they are simple as hell. But in my work, I'm forced to use ant.
The main problem I have against ant is that XML makes it hard to read and understand, even with the correct indentation. On the other hand, the verbosity of XML can help when reading someone else's ant file, but still makes it a PITA when the file is more than a few tens of lines.
As for having a GUI to build... I've always felt that's a minus rather than a plus.
Maven is the best for me because it handles the project dependencies
As good developers we keep our code as standard compliant as possible to help in porting between platforms. But what tools are available that help us build the code in a uniform way across multiple platforms.
*nix family has make but Windows needs nmake.
I have read about SCons but never used it in anger. What is your favorite build tool, why do you find it effective and are there any limitations (i.e. platforms with bad support etc).
Cross platform IDEs as well.
cmake for c/c++ environments is good. http://www.cmake.org/
I personally use ant, rake, and maven2. I have used ant the most and find it great for several reasons:
Because it is java it works on lots of platforms (without changing any scripts)
The build files are written in XML and fairly easy to write
There are lots of 3rd party extensions available for it and it is easy to write plugins for
we do extreme cross development, and our code runs on linux, windows ce, windows 2K, nucleus and uCOS-II.
since each environment uses different 'make' methodology (out nucleus customer, for example, require us to compile via code-warrior GUI).
i used ANT combined with perl for about 2 years, but this lead the build script to total non-maintainability.
now we moved to use python, which increase the maintainability of the scripts.
bottom line, i did not find a ready-made tool, and had to build my own. maybe, when i have some time (2017 ?) i will pack my scripts and distribute them ....
If you're in the Java world, there are quite a few tools which are cross-platform. Apache Ant and Maven are both build tools which will run on any platform which has Java available for it.
Cruise Control (continuous integration tool) also works on Windows and Linux (it's written in Java as well).
I haven't had any real issues with the core tools, the only problems I've sometimes had have come from things external to the build process, i.e. publishing artifacts - this will vary between systems so I've found there's no single way of setting it up.
For C/C++ development, I've found that bakefile works well. The fairly large wxWidgets project, a cross-platform cross-platform utility and UI library, uses it for their build file generation.
Bakefile is cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles generator. It takes compiler-independent description of build tasks as input and generates native makefile (autoconf's Makefile.in, Visual C++ project, bcc makefile etc.).
Bakefile's task is to generate native makefiles, so that people can keep using their favorite tools. There are other cross-platform make solutions, but they either aren't native and require the user to use unfamiliar tools (Boost.Build) or they are too limited (qmake).
You can use gmake on Windows as well with cygwin/minGW or build your windows stuff on Linux.
http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com/2009/05/mingw-cross-for-linux.html
There are tools like Opus Make or MKS Toolkit that offers multiplatform and support. If you have an existing codebase of make script, could be easier migrate to one of there. I suspect you may hunt for similar tools in advertising of DDJ magazine.
We've been running a Java environment for Linux, Windows and the Mac for the last 18 months.
Maven 2 drives our builds, it's pretty easy to get things consistent here. Where M2 plugins don't dare to tread, we use small Ant scripts.
IDE-wise we're using Eclipse & IDEA - both, of course, multi-platform.
Testing - JUnit, Fitnesse, Fest - all nicely multi-platform.
Release scripts are written in Ruby. There's a bit more trouble with Windows here, but a function to convert paths as necessary generally does the trick.
TeamCity does CI. We've actually migrated this from Windows to Linux and encountered no errors at all, very nice package.
We did use GWT for a while and this did cause us large amounts of pain. Be careful if you swing that way.
Greetings,
I want to write a small cross-platform utility program with GUI in it. What language/GUI-library should I stick to? Is it possible whatsoever?
This is gonna be a small program, so I don't want to make people download JVM or .NET Framework. Is it possible to develop it natively?
Update 1.
By "natively" I mean that the end result will be native code without intermediate layers like Java Virtual Machine or .NET Common Language Runtime
Update 2.
A FREE solution is preferable ;)
If you know C or C++ the first cross platform GUI framework I can think of are:
QT (C++, proprietary but free with the LGPL licensing)
wxWidgets (C++, the most complete and stable but also huge)
FLTK (C++)
FOX (C++)
IUP (C, simpler and cleaner than the ones above)
If you know Pascal, you can try freepascal+Lazarus. I've never used it, though.
The problem is: If you do not want to have a GUI but you do not want to ask the user to download an eternal API, Framework or virtual machine to run it in, be it TCL/TK, Java or QT etc. then you get lost pretty fast.
The reason is: You would have to rebuild all the (GUI) functionality those APIs, frameworks and virtual machines provide you with to be platform independent. And that's a whole lot of work to do... .
On the other side: The Java virtual machine is installed on nearly any operating system from scratch, why not give this one a shot?
You want to develop a cross-platform program natively? Uh...I don't think that'll work, mainly because that phrase is a paradox. If you write native code, it by its very nature will only run on the platform you programmed it for. ;-) That's what the Frameworks are all about.
So what you should do instead is use a very slim framework if your program is going to be so small. itsmatt's idea of Qt is a possibility.
WxWindows? Oh, it's called WxWidgets now: http://www.wxwidgets.org/
wxWidgets has bindings to all sorts of languages - python for instance, if your app is small enough.
Lazarus is great. GTK2 on Linux, win32/64 on Windows, WINCE on euh, Wince. It even uses Carbon on Mac (working on COCOA). Also easy to sell to your boss (the code is Delphi compatible)
How about Python using Qt or Wx and then using PythonToExe to make a 'distributable'
Thought will have to giving to the development to ensure that no native functionality is used (i.e. registry etc.) Also things like line breaks in text files will have different escape characters so will need to be handled
Which OS's do you have in mind when you say cross-platform?
As Epaga correctly points out, native and cross-platform are mutually exclusive. You can either write multiple versions that run natively on multiple platforms, or you need to use some cross-platform framework.
In the case of the cross-platform framework approach, there will always be extra installs required. For example, many here suggest using Python and one of its frameworks. This would necessitate instructing people to install python - and potentially the framework - first.
If you are aiming at Windows and OS X (and are prepared to experiment with alpha-release code for Linux if support for that OS is required), I'd highly recommend you take a look at using Adobe AIR for cross-platform GUI applications.
I agree with Georgi, Java is the way to go. With a bit of work, you can make your desktop application work as a Java applet too (so that users do not need to actively download anything at all). See http://www.geogebra.org as an example of an application with runs smoothly as a cross-platform Java application AND has a simple port to a web applet.
Two other advantages to using Java are:
They have extensive libraries for building the UI, including UI component builders.
The Java runtime framework is generally updated automatically for the user.
One disadvantage:
The version of Java installed on your end users computer may not be totally compatible with your application, requiring you to code to the lowest likely denominator.
Try RealBasic. Visual Basic-like syntax, targets Win32, OS X and Linux. I don't know any details about targetting Linux, but for any cross-platform development I've done between Win32 and OS X its been a dream.
http://www.realbasic.com
Edit: Generates native executables. There is a small cost - $100.
Have you looked at Qt?
Flash? It's installed pretty much everywhere.
If it "HAS" to be Desktop use Qt. Nothing beats it right now.
However personally I gave up on desktop and any UI based project I do is normally Browser/Server based. You can easily write a little custom server that listens to some port so the program can run locally with no need for your users to install Apache or have access to the net. I have a small Lua, Python and C++ framework I made for that purpose (Want to add Javascript for the backend with V8 :)
If you're going to look at Qt and WxWidgets, don't forget to also check out GTK+ !
I agree with David Wees and Georgi,
Java is cross-platformness par excellence. You literally write once and run everywhere. With no need of compiling your code for each target OS or bitness, no worries about linking against anything, etc.
Only thing is, as you pointed out, that a JRE must be installed, but it's quick and straightforward to do even for novice end-users (it's a matter of clicking "Next>" a few times in the installer).
And with Java Web Start deployment gets even easier: the user just clicks the launch button on a webpage and the application runs (if the proper JVM is installed according to what specified in the JNLP descriptor) or the user gets redirected to the Java download page (if no suitable JVM is found).