<Snicker> I’m talking about
Buildr, a drop-in replacement for
Maven; I’ve never used Maven but boy
do people ever hate it. Buildr
is written in
Ruby not Java, it uses a DSL-ish Ruby dialect for build files instead of XML, and it’s
Comment feed for ongoing:
From: Dominic Mitchell (May 07 2007, at 12:04)
Maven is an interesting idea, but it has the worst UI ever.
The POM (XML config file) itself is OK, but pretty verbose and repetitive. The documentation is reasonable, but makes a boat load of assumptions. All in all, it's something I really want to use, but am totally unconvinced by the current implementation. I guess I'd better take a look at buildr...
From: Cedric (May 07 2007, at 14:03)
How would we know? There is absolutely no doc.
I could never trust a product that thinks that a Javadoc/rdoc is good enough.
From: Assaf (May 07 2007, at 14:57)
I don't expect anyone to know how to use it without real docs.
There will be an official release that includes real docs, hopefully ones you'll enjoy reading.
From: Steve Ivy (May 07 2007, at 19:07)
Thanks for link, Tim. I had the same reaction (http://redmonk.net/archives/2007/05/07/i-hate-rdoc/) as Cedric, though - what's with the JavaDoc^H^H^H^H^H^H^H RDoc?
From: John H (May 08 2007, at 05:50)
As I ponder ways of escaping from writing Ant scripts, I'm wondering how Buildr and Maven compare to things like SCons. Anyone out there tried both?
From: Joe Germuska (May 10 2007, at 14:43)
I won't try to claim that Maven has no flaws, but I will say that as the leader of a small team of webapp developers, adopting Maven 1 three or four years ago was a major factor in enabling us to systematize development.
Developers can roll on to a new project and they know exactly how to get it running for local development and get it built to a test server. For any new project, the Maven plumbing takes minutes, not hours, giving us more time to focus on the more interesting stuff.
Also, as a participant in various Apache open source Java projects, I witnessed first hand how converting to Maven made it much, much simpler to go into a new codebase and be working in it effectively with a minimum of overhead. Compared to what had been the prior art--a series of Ant scripts with a hodgepodge of ways to deal with local variations--it was a revelation to move projects to Maven.
I'll be happy to see people build the next thing which is even better than Maven, but I felt that I had to speak up in defense of something which has proven a great tool for both my professional and my personal development projects.
By Tim Bray.
I am an employee
of Amazon.com, but
the opinions expressed here
are my own, and no other party
necessarily agrees with them.
A full disclosure of my
professional interests is
on the author page.