On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote: > On 26 Mar 2010, at 05:50, Chas Emerick wrote: > >> 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. > > Reuse is fine, libraries are fine. But Maven seems to be a monolithic beast > that does a zillion things automatically and without telling me. Sure, I can > always add some magic incantations on the command line to change whatever I > want, but I need to know and understand all that. > > What I like is the Unix approach: each tool does one thing but does it well, > and a flexible combination method (shells and pipes in the Unix case) > permits everyone to customize the operations as necessary. That doesn't > prevent anyone from providing easy-install scripts for end users, of course.
Yes, I have exactly same feelings as well. IMHO, ant fits the task of the build tool very well. I never really understood why clojure-contrib moved to maven. What is needed is a tool to handle just the dependencies part. -- Ramakrishnan -- 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.
