3 ms·

Honestly, I'd like to see Maven/more tools in .NET more than language features for a very good reason: all the niceties of these new language features don't see

Honestly, I'd like to see Maven/more tools in .NET more than language features for a very good reason: all the niceties of these new language features don't seem to contribute much to most .NET projects somehow. Either people aren't using it, or the type of software that uses .NET don't need it, or the 98% programmers simply ignore it, or something else that I don't know/can't point them out. So please Microsoft, give us Maven for .NET. NuGET and MSBuild aren't enough.

kodablah 15y ago
Maven is a bad dependency/package manager because of the complicated nuance, XML, etc. Java 8 is even planning on using Project Jigsaw to get rid of it (IIRC). Something like Grape or Buildr would be a better model.
- edwinnathaniel 15y ago
  I've never had any issue nor felt that Maven is overly complicated so far having done a few large projects with minimum Maven overhead (i.e.: haven't had the need to customize it). I do agree with you that XML makes programmability aspect of it a little bit more complex than it should be (you still can write plugins if you have to, as opposed to use XML).
- jawher 15y ago
  > Maven is a bad dependency/package manager because of the complicated nuance What nuance ? >XML Fair point. I don't know what they were thinking when they decided not to use attributes, but come on, XML is not that bad. > Java 8 is even planning on using Project Jigsaw to get rid of it (IIRC). Wrong: Jigsaw is a modularity tool, maven is a build tool. Jigsaw is intended as a competitor to OSGi, not maven. Jigsaw won't compile your project, resolve your dependencies nor deploy your product. > Something like Grape or Buildr would be a better model. I beg to differ. I'm no big fan of maven either, but the idea behind it is pure genius, i.e. an implicit source layout and build lifecycle. Where in imperative tools like ant and co you'd need to repeat again and again the same snippets, compile all those files in the src dir into a bin dir, copy a bunch of resource files to the bin dir, package the whole thing in a jar or a war, place it in a target dir. Also, the dependencies management used to be a tedious task, with you hunting for the correct versions of jars, placing them in a lib directory, going as far as to version them. Most tools now tend to emulate maven's way of dependency management. Nothing like this with maven: you just place your code and resources in standard locations, create a pom.xml file with just infos regarding your project (name, version and type), possibly the dependencies, and with standard commandes (mvn install for example), it will fetch the dependencies, build your porject, package it and install it. Maven has its warts: verbose XML, unexpected behaviour in some cases, hard to customize (mostly when you try hard not to follow the standards), etc. But these are minor and fixable issues compared to the value it provides to countless developers who could fetch a project source and build it with one standard command.

kodablah 15y ago

Maven is a bad dependency/package manager because of the complicated nuance, XML, etc. Java 8 is even planning on using Project Jigsaw to get rid of it (IIRC). Something like Grape or Buildr would be a better model.

edwinnathaniel 15y ago
I've never had any issue nor felt that Maven is overly complicated so far having done a few large projects with minimum Maven overhead (i.e.: haven't had the need to customize it). I do agree with you that XML makes programmability aspect of it a little bit more complex than it should be (you still can write plugins if you have to, as opposed to use XML).
jawher 15y ago
> Maven is a bad dependency/package manager because of the complicated nuance What nuance ? >XML Fair point. I don't know what they were thinking when they decided not to use attributes, but come on, XML is not that bad. > Java 8 is even planning on using Project Jigsaw to get rid of it (IIRC). Wrong: Jigsaw is a modularity tool, maven is a build tool. Jigsaw is intended as a competitor to OSGi, not maven. Jigsaw won't compile your project, resolve your dependencies nor deploy your product. > Something like Grape or Buildr would be a better model. I beg to differ. I'm no big fan of maven either, but the idea behind it is pure genius, i.e. an implicit source layout and build lifecycle. Where in imperative tools like ant and co you'd need to repeat again and again the same snippets, compile all those files in the src dir into a bin dir, copy a bunch of resource files to the bin dir, package the whole thing in a jar or a war, place it in a target dir. Also, the dependencies management used to be a tedious task, with you hunting for the correct versions of jars, placing them in a lib directory, going as far as to version them. Most tools now tend to emulate maven's way of dependency management. Nothing like this with maven: you just place your code and resources in standard locations, create a pom.xml file with just infos regarding your project (name, version and type), possibly the dependencies, and with standard commandes (mvn install for example), it will fetch the dependencies, build your porject, package it and install it. Maven has its warts: verbose XML, unexpected behaviour in some cases, hard to customize (mostly when you try hard not to follow the standards), etc. But these are minor and fixable issues compared to the value it provides to countless developers who could fetch a project source and build it with one standard command.