Because they're common processes that are ideally built once, and then
reused with minor variation. Library reuse is generally considered to
be a good thing in software development, so it strikes me as odd that
many think that such practices should stop at the build's edge, as it
were.
Truly, maven is often referred to using various terms that are more
expansive than "build tool", as it aims to bring a degree of
standardization and regularity to a variety of non-programming-related
tasks associated with building, configuring, deploying, and releasing
software. IIRC, even the simple notion of systematized dependency
management was an alien notion in the JVM world until maven came
around (which, if I have my timeline right, later inspired ivy due to
shortcomings in maven v1?).
I guess I would counter with: why would you want to reinvent your
build/configuration/deployment practices for every project?
Cheers,
- Chas
On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:33 AM, Per Vognsen wrote:
One of the weirdest things coming to the Java world is to witness what
strange things people take for granted should be in the build tool.
All the example features you mention in your article are convenient,
but I don't see why they belong in the build tool. They should be
completely separate pieces of functionality that you happen to use the
build tool to invoke. Why this obsession with integration and unified
configuration?
-Per
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Chas Emerick
<cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote:
I published a blog post earlier today, along with a short
screencast that
might be of interest:
"Like any group of super-smart programmers using a relatively new
language,
a lot of folks in the Clojure community have looked at existing
build tools
(the JVM space is the relevant one here, meaning primarily Maven
and Ant,
although someone will bark if I don't mention Gradle, too), and
felt a rush
of disdain. I'd speculate that this came mostly because of XML
allergies,
but perhaps also in part because when one has a hammer as glorious as
Clojure, it's hard to not want to use it to beat away at every
problem in
sight."
Read on: http://muckandbrass.com/web/x/AgBV
Feedback welcome, either here or in the comments on the post.
Cheers,
- Chas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient
with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the
words
"REMOVE ME" as the subject.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient
with your first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure
+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words
"REMOVE ME" as the subject.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or
reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
