3 ms·
Right now, SBT + IDEA is a bit of a pain because they share the same target folder and IDEA sometimes overwrites/deletes .class files that your application (sta
by lomnakkus 13y ago
Right now, SBT + IDEA is a bit of a pain because they share the same target folder and IDEA sometimes overwrites/deletes .class files that your application (started via sbt run) hasn't loaded yet. Usually that leads to a few ClassDefNotFound errors and such. Hopefully that'll go away once we have a single SBT instance.
My two wishes for SBT would be: 1) A monadic style for .scala build files. It would make dealing with the immutable bits of project definitions so much more pleasant and we could avoid the weird semi-Scala syntax of .sbt files. And 2) A bottom-up approach similar to Pants. My team frequently end up getting a lot more project interdependencies than we bargain for simply because it's too easy to induce transitive dependencies.
- eeperson 13y agoWould you mind elaborating on what you mean by a monadic style for .scala build files? PS - You may already know this, but you can change IntelliJ's compile output directory [0]. [0] - http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/webhelp/configuring-module-compiler-output.html http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/webhelp/configuring-module-com...
- lomnakkus 13y agoThank you, I haven't actually tried that. I really live the "I just want my IDE to work" philosophy (out of laziness), so I try to avoid configuration if I can. :) About monadic style: I realize that it's a hard sell, but it's basically about leveraging for comprehensions (aka. do-notation) to specify your build. Shake is an example of this, although probably not particularly suited to building Scala code.