-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth McDonald [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 4:50 PM
To: Maven Users List
Subject: Re: maven is a swamp
Well, just to make it concrete, I am not a troll. I've been doing dev for
20+ years, have lots of
experience with large projects, etc. etc. If I have to drop names, I was
associated with one of
the two main sites of the Human Genome Project.
I still don't get the complacency at the XML swamp. How is
<genericTagName>false</genericTagName>
possibly better than
<genericTagName>false</>
which would in turn be better than:
genericTagName = "false"
XML is a swamp of undertulized, overused redundancy. Period.
In response to the person who'd interrogated 2K+ people to see if they
thought
XML was overrdone; Wow, that's really impressive! Where did you find the
time
to ask all those people and still get your your job done? Whereas, if I
ask the five
people who I know well, and who have to use these tools, the answer is,
"what
a bunch of garbage". They HATE XML.
Still not convinced? What about the simple fact of that that languages
before, and the
languages _since_ have not been written in a dialect of XML. If XML were
such a great
solution, surely it would have cleared here by now.
But of course it hasn't. The reasons is because it's a CRAPPY SOLUTION.
Period. No Line breaks.
Unless one is writing for ultimate display in the web, XML SUCKS
In all the best to have all the people who have responded to this,
I don't see how you can continue maintain your position,
Yours,
Ken
On Oct 15, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Yanko, Curtis wrote:
+1
________________________________
Curt Yanko | Continuous Integration Services | UnitedHealth Group IT
Making IT Happen, one build at a time
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:39 AM
To: Maven Users List
Subject: Re: maven is a swamp
I really fail at understanding the XML rage. Yeah it's verbose. How's
that a problem? We've had tools with auto complete, auto format and
syntax highlighting for well over a decade, we also now have fairly
robust GUIs too. If you're hand editing a 2000 line xml file in a
green
screen terminal you're doing the equivalent of using an abacus and I'm
afraid you're not the user new tools ought to be aimed at.
XML has a huge ubiquity value. It might not be the *best* tool for the
job for each individual user but it's the only one that is widely
enough
understood to not put an additional learning burden on the user. When
I
learned Maven I had to grok concepts like dependencyManagement and
plugins and phases. I didn't have to learn XML, I already knew it. If
Maven POMs were written in Python or A.N.Other language/markup I'd have
to learn that too. There are many useful libraries that make it easier
to produce GUI tools on top of XML that don't exist for alternatives,
so
we'd have less tooling for POMs. Tooling and minimising the learning
required are good things.
The _actual_ problem I see is the lack of "best practise" use for
plugins off the beaten track. The documentation is usually fairly good
at telling you how to make a plugin do something, it's less than
brilliant at recommending best practises and unless it's one of the
mainstream ones covered by the sonatype book it's hard to find. I've
found the best thing to do in those cases is go look at large, open
source projects and see how they do it. Ken's original problem in this
thread (and the others he's been getting help with on the scala list)
are _nothing_ to do with XML, that is just the target of frustration.
They would have happened regardless of the language for POM
specification.
For us, Maven's killed about 12,000 lines of ant legacy built up over a
few years, and also done a drive by on a couple of dozen ivy files,
replacing them with one medium size POM declaring dependency versions,
a
dozen small ones declaring dependencies, and a bunch of minimal ones -
all with NO bespoke build instructions in. Using nexus has killed the
need to maintain an internal ivy repository which was a real pain in
the
rear, and we can now easily share deliverables with the other couple of
hundred developers we have working in the same technologies around the
globe. It's been very painless by comparison to what we were doing
before and well worth the switchover.
Regards
Brian
On 15 October 2010 08:56,<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 3:00 am, Jason van Zyl wrote:
A fact to note though is that I've asked over 2k people over the
last two years at talks and in any average crowd the people who care
to have a different format or DSL is around 3%.
And I one of them :-) I always havent been a friend of XML and I happy
to see the possibilities maven3 offers (although I prefer using gradle
-
bygones)
What I'm wondering most is - why the heck do you write to the maven
mailinglist how you dislike maven ? Is your intention to convince
people that they are doing bad stuff over the last xxx years ? Is it
just pure boredness ?
I dont like Ruby or Clojure - what is the reason to bother the
ruby/clojure mailing list that their syntax is apparently horrible ?
Sorry - I dont get it... If you dont like maven - dont use it... there
are tons of alternatives around.
Or what point do I miss here ?
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the
intended
recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the
sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
