Fuck maven. For fucks sake. If you want to install something in js project, you do yarn add ... and shit works. If you want to install on linux you do apt-get ... If you want to install ANYTHING on windows in fuckin 2020 you download it and it has an .exe.

But not maven. Oh nooooo. You need to do all the bullshit with configuration, set shitty paths and just pray for someone to shoot you.

Don't punish me for Windows. It's a God damn corporate policy not my sane choice...

...don't you just, err, copy the dependency declaration from maven central?

Maven is honestly one of the easiest and most transparent dependency management tools I've used. Gets harder if you want to use it to *push* stuff to Maven central, but for dependency resolution, I've never had an issue.

@AlmondSauce that is literally all I ever do and shit has been working fine for me for....many...fucking...years lol

@AlmondSauce What about all the transient dependencies, dependency conflicts between libraries that use the same or different versions of the same dependency, causing some obscure bug inside those dependencies, then also a particular repository needs a specialized mirror repo or it won't work.

Dependency hell..

@CaptainRant Oh, absolutely. But that's not really the fault of maven. You could use any other dependency system and you'd be in the same boat.

@AlmondSauce you mean the same bloat?

@orhun Pretty much 😂

Seriously, no. And lets not even start talking about versions and plugins. Java is just deprecated, period.

@AlmondSauce Usually dependency management tools manage versions for you, and warn you when you require different versions of the same thing, so that you can downgrade one of your dependecies or whatever. Maven simply doesn't do any dependency management, you have to do it yourself.

@simulate deprecated? how? new version and updates are out all the time and it is still on the top of most used languages o.o how is it deprecated?

I've been using Gradle for years, didn't know people still liked typing xml.

@AleCx04 I think deprecated in this case means "But I don't like it".

@Hastouki Me too for all my personal projects, the syntax is way nicer. Most corporate projects where I am are maven though, and trying to persuade management to migrate isn't worth the hassle.

@AlmondSauce I don't get why they wouldn't. Unless they are doing some really weird "hairy" build crap, the conversion is brainlessly easy.

@Hastouki It's a business call more than a technical one - the argument being that most other places still use maven, so it's easier to find people with maven experience than gradle experience.

Not saying I agree with it, I don't - but I also don't care about it that much that I'll start an argument. Plenty of other things to pick battles over first.

@AleCx04 The language features and tools are simply deprecated by newer languages. The only reason to develop anything in Java is because of legacy code and libraries, which is actually not supposed to be running anymore.

@AleCx04 don't get me wrong, I am not trying to bash Java. It's just that we keep running into solved problems with it.

@simulate Java is not at all dying, just maven is, a slow painful death

@Hastouki Popular languages will get deprecated at some point, and the sooner the better.. nothing against Java, but the software industry needs to learn to move on.. also with javascript. There are new concepts and improved designs, we should start using those languages now.

@simulate I've been in the industry for almost 20 years and have adapted often, I enjoy learning new languages. Thing is people say things like that all the time, especially for C++ (my specialty), yet languages evolve and improve. I personally don't like the Java tool ecosystem, and would love to see better open source tools, but the language itself is quite healthy.

@simulate Sorry, but Java is not "deprecated", and your attestation that it's only for legacy stuff that shouldn't be running any more is... demonstrably untrue. Have a search for Greenfield Java projects... You'll find plenty. Many in very, very successful companies that have only been running a few years.

You may not like Java, and I completely respect that. But you're extending your distaste to make statements that are obviously false.

@AlmondSauce What should or should not be running anymore is subject for debate. No doubt, Java is still being heavily used, and it will still be for quite some time. But I would be very glad if we could just adapt to new technology quicker. We don't need to have null pointer dereferences or exceptions. We don't need to have incomplete standard libraries. We don't need incomplete developer tools. If we just focussed on new technology more, we could enjoy more of it.

@simulate We might come from very different mentalities when it comes to matters of tools and features.
First and foremost, most of us that work with Java are more in bed with the JVM than we are with the language itself. The language is just a conduit, we could easily swap Java(the language) for something like Clojure(which I've had at work) and Scala(which i am intending) or Groovy(not this one but interesting still enough) and in terms of features all of those, and the many others that exist would hardly set the JVM as a deprecated technology. In tools we actually have a regression in IDE development.

We had the correct idea with REPL integrated development environments, we had the right idea with live development environments with Smalltalk.

Now we have web browsers with text editing capabilities and a fuckload of JS plugins. All languages have been affected by this, but I cannot look at a feature of intelliJ and say "pfff that is deprecated"

@AlmondSauce I got exactly the same thing from the argument. Nothing wrong with disliking a technology, but it does not mean that such opinions would be the end all be all.

@AleCx04 Java is very important for GUI development, and GUI is very important for many, especially for enterprise applications. But I have never enjoyed any of the tools which were built using Java. It feels bulky and inefficient.
I think graphical user interfaces is an increadibly important application of software, and I would like to see improvements there. This is why I am kind of pushing for adopting new technologies, like Rust. If we just had more Frameworks and Libraries written with Rust, we would have much better tools, I believe.

@simulate Dude, what?! Java hasn't been used for GUI development in eons, save a few weird cases. If you're talking about desktop Java, it's very dead and has been for ages.

Java these days is almost universally server side with the spring Framework (and a few others every so often.)

@AlmondSauce ah okay, yeah well that is why I'm saying that it's deprecated.. I don't know what makes it especially fit for server development either.
The only real advantage of Java that I see is that the class system is relatively intuitive, which makes it easy to start learning. But overall it uses deprecated programming styles and is very prone to bugs, just like python, javascript, C++, .. okay actually any other imperative languages except Rust are missing a lot of features which appear to be immensly benefitial for stability and productivity.
My point is that we should generally start thinking about how to integrate successful ideas better with existing technology.
I am specifically talking about borrow-checking and strong generic type systems, with existential types and type classes and zero-cost abstractions.
Because efficiency actually matters, and can be achieved without loss of ergonomics.

@simulate Genuine question, have you used Java at all recently? It sounds like you're describing the Java ecosystem in the early 2000's, where Java server development was unusual (PHP was all the rage), desktop Java apps were new and cool, and the class structure was a brand new, rather unique syntax.

It's by no means a perfect language, and it's certainly not rust, but it's moved on a *lot* in the last 20 years - and again, it most certainly doesn't use "deprecated programming styles" (if such a thing even exists.)

@AlmondSauce i think the problem here is that our dude is making statements from a VERY external point of view without really much knowledge about what makes the language and platform so popular.

I caught as much when he said that it is used for GUI dev....

OP I have used Java for a multitude of things professionally. Nothing about the language makes it deprecated. Rust had a very different target than that for which Java is most commonly used for.

By nature of thinking about language features then Go would have been dead before launching it and C would be long gone by know and languages like Common Lisp and Smalltalk would reign supreme.
Rust has is niche, no doubt about that. Bur your point is hard to consider when you make ignorant statements like the previous ones about the Java language and subsequently the platform being that there are *many* reasons to use it for a lot of things other than just because its simple class systm

And I mean that with no intention of disrespect.

@AleCx04 Yeah, Java is a large swathe of my day job at the moment. I'm no fanboy, and I'll join in bashing it for all sorts of valid reasons any day, but these arguments are making no sense.

@AleCx04 No worries, you are being very respectful, and I thank both of you for acknowlegding my opinion, even though I have an external viewpoint.

I have used Java recently in University and had very mixed feelings about it. Of course comparing it to an emergin language like Rust might be reprehensible, and probably you wouldn't exactly call it "deprecated" just because something else exists now.
It will always take some time to adopt new technology, but sometimes I'm just wondering why some languages are still being promoted. I mean we need to stop producing legacy code at some point. I don't exactly count Java in for my future plans.
I am just a bit impacient, I guess that is why I try to push people into moving on.

I also hope that we can have a sort of universal language at some point. So that we don't get new languages emerging, but just new features to one language.

@simulate Remember, in the "real" world so to speak, there's a *lot* more than technical purity / niceness that goes into picking a programming language, good or not. Number and cost of developers on the market that understand that language, amount of proven examples & documentation in that language, professional support contracts available, likelihood that the language will be supported going forwards, amount of third party libraries developed for that language, stability of the compiler & runtime, native support in tools such as AWS lambda functions, etc.

All of those reasons, and more, matter a *lot* more to businesses than how nice a language may be technically. Shareholders don't give two hoots about having to write lots of boilerplate, but they care a great deal if there's a risk current developers may abscond and it'd take them years to find new ones.

@AlmondSauce It's not just "niceness" though, it is actual long term value. how long the term is only determined by how quick we progress. If we all started switching to modern versions of our languages now, we would have a period of no results, but afterwards we would come out with better results than before.

But I am not opposing your points, it is true that technical risk factors are very important in the economic industry. So many companies go with old and tested.

@simulate I can see your point there. I tend to roll my eyes every time I see a new language coming out, but I can understand the necessity from it. Some things fail due to many factors, had it been my choice back then Smalltalk would be all the rage since I really find it a beautiful programming paradigm. Java was basically the programming community wanting a simpler alternative to C++ when you really think of it. It was new, it introduced a pure object oriented paradigm(lets not focus too much on the "pure" aspect of it) and a lot of cool features at the time that did not exist. It was THE language to use when it came out and it provided the nicety of just needing the JVM for running the resulting bytecode rather than different make mechanisms for different architectures.

And maybe Java is too cumbersome for the small applications that one normally writes during undergraduate studies, but boy it is a blessing in large enterprise level apps with a nice architecture in place