3 ms·

Anyone who says sbt > maven should have been an egyptologist. I get you would enjoy deciphering hieroglyphs...

by frant-hartm 10y ago

etrepen 10y ago
If you prefer xml over sbt syntax then you've a serious problem. You might be a mediocre coder kid.
- frant-hartm 10y ago
  Yes I do prefer XML. XML syntax is very simple, has very good IDE support (navigation, autocompletion - thanks to xml schema, etc.. can any IDE autocomplete dependencies from repository in .sbt files?). Maven itself provides good easy ways to reuse the configuration across multiple modules. If you exclude dependencies than for more complex projects the no of lines in pom.xml build files is somewhere between 50 - 100 % more, so it is not like .sbt (or gradle - which I find superior to both) is 10 times less verbose. Look at play https://github.com/playframework/playframework/blob/master/framework/build.sbt https://github.com/playframework/playframework/blob/master/f... Here is a list of few glyphs from there: ._ := () ++ ++= ]( % target := target.value / "sbt-routes-compiler", Seriously?
  - etrepen 10y ago
    > XML syntax is very simple Assembly is also very simple. Basic is also very simple. Why don't we program in these "simple" languages? > has very good IDE support (navigation, autocompletion - thanks to xml schema, etc.. can any IDE autocomplete dependencies from repository in .sbt files? Just like .sbt sources, since it's Scala + the SBT API + some operators. > If you exclude dependencies than for more complex projects the no of lines in pom.xml build files is somewhere between 50 - 100 % more, so it is not like .sbt (or gradle - which I find superior to both) is 10 times less verbose. SBT is a dsl in Scala. It's at least 10 times more powerful compared to java & xml. Even the dependency system is far simpler in .sbt files. XML is just bloated, full with noise and primitivity. Just like java. > or gradle - which I find superior to both Why? > Here is a list of few glyphs from there: ._ := () ++ ++= ]( % target := target.value / "sbt-routes-compiler", If you don't have a clue what's "++" and such operators and you're too lazy to search for it then you're not a programmer just a joke. Seriouly, how can you complaing about a few operators in a dsl?! "](" isn't even an operator, "[]" is the generic parameters' syntax while "()" are just parens. This is the problem with you java devs, you're too lazy to learn. And that's what hits your quality.

Anyone who says sbt > maven should have been an egyptologist. I get you would enjoy deciphering hieroglyphs...

etrepen 10y ago

If you prefer xml over sbt syntax then you've a serious problem. You might be a mediocre coder kid.

frant-hartm 10y ago
Yes I do prefer XML. XML syntax is very simple, has very good IDE support (navigation, autocompletion - thanks to xml schema, etc.. can any IDE autocomplete dependencies from repository in .sbt files?). Maven itself provides good easy ways to reuse the configuration across multiple modules. If you exclude dependencies than for more complex projects the no of lines in pom.xml build files is somewhere between 50 - 100 % more, so it is not like .sbt (or gradle - which I find superior to both) is 10 times less verbose. Look at play https://github.com/playframework/playframework/blob/master/framework/build.sbt https://github.com/playframework/playframework/blob/master/f... Here is a list of few glyphs from there: ._ := () ++ ++= ]( % target := target.value / "sbt-routes-compiler", Seriously?
- etrepen 10y ago
  > XML syntax is very simple Assembly is also very simple. Basic is also very simple. Why don't we program in these "simple" languages? > has very good IDE support (navigation, autocompletion - thanks to xml schema, etc.. can any IDE autocomplete dependencies from repository in .sbt files? Just like .sbt sources, since it's Scala + the SBT API + some operators. > If you exclude dependencies than for more complex projects the no of lines in pom.xml build files is somewhere between 50 - 100 % more, so it is not like .sbt (or gradle - which I find superior to both) is 10 times less verbose. SBT is a dsl in Scala. It's at least 10 times more powerful compared to java & xml. Even the dependency system is far simpler in .sbt files. XML is just bloated, full with noise and primitivity. Just like java. > or gradle - which I find superior to both Why? > Here is a list of few glyphs from there: ._ := () ++ ++= ]( % target := target.value / "sbt-routes-compiler", If you don't have a clue what's "++" and such operators and you're too lazy to search for it then you're not a programmer just a joke. Seriouly, how can you complaing about a few operators in a dsl?! "](" isn't even an operator, "[]" is the generic parameters' syntax while "()" are just parens. This is the problem with you java devs, you're too lazy to learn. And that's what hits your quality.