News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Python past, present, and future with Guido van Rossum [a... by crdoconnor on Thursday February 23, 2017 @10:28AM (#13714612)
>Seriously. For anything more than a single developer maven is the best build system I've ever used by a long way, because its customizability is so limited

That, along with its horrible XML markup abortion, was exactly what I hated about it. Any behavior that was even moderately unusual was a monumental pain to implement.

Build scripts by their very nature need to be turing complete because the need for customization isn't rare enough.

>Beyond that there's a working central repository where all the important libraries are

Python got this 17 years ago, a good 4 years before maven even existed.

Re:Python past, present, and future with Guido van Rossum [a... by lmm on Thursday February 23, 2017 @11:48AM (#13715309)
> Build scripts by their very nature need to be turing complete.

They really don't. The build process should be simple and the same for every project; any actual logic can go in first-class code, that's what it's for (whereas finding out that a file somehow wasn't built, or got substituted before being built, makes for an extremely unpleasant surprise when investigating an issue). I find Turing-complete build systems end up with an analogue of https://martinfowler.com/bliki/SnowflakeServer.html - the "snowflake build", where every module builds slightly differently.

Re:Python past, present, and future with Guido van Rossum [a... by bluejekyll on Thursday February 23, 2017 @10:57AM (#13714882)
Maven is not a build script, it is a declarative build definition system.

It is not supposed to be Turing complete, for things that need that customization, as the GP stated, you use extensions.

For anyone who likes maven, checkout cargo in Rust. It got everything right, and made build extensions easier to integrate.