4 ms·
I think the real question is whether this is project-level (Ant, Maven) or integration/deployment-level (Jenkins, Hudson), or both. Having played around with Ma
by Pewpewarrows 15y ago
I think the real question is whether this is project-level (Ant, Maven) or integration/deployment-level (Jenkins, Hudson), or both. Having played around with Maven and Jenkins a lot over the last month or so, I really can't imagine how they'd improve much over them. Jenkins' interface could use a pretty hefty facelift, but functionality-wise they're both rock-solid.
Is this going to be a case of not-invented-here syndrome, or will it really up-end the build and deployment culture like git and mercurial did to subversion? I'm guessing something in between, but we'll see.
- chrisjsmith 15y agoI imagine they are trying for simplicity, on the lines of Guice. I know Google are obsessed with SCons for building other stuff so I get the feeling we're going to get a Java version of Scons.
- kodablah 15y agoScons already supports Java (http://www.scons.org/doc/production/HTML/scons-user/c4348.html http://www.scons.org/doc/production/HTML/scons-user/c4348.ht...). But I believe you're right, it will be scriptable out of the box like Gradle. But not python though.
- jey 15y agoThat's kinda weird. Google's source tree is notoriously huge and SCons is notoriously slow at computing dependencies in large projects. I wonder how they make it work.
- yesimahuman 15y agoWhile maven is very powerful, the minimalist in me wants to see something far more simple and still just as functional. If they can achieve that, I think it would be great. Maven is just too much, IMO.