It’s core to Clojure’s design principles tho’. If you think it’s “cringe” then maybe Clojure isn’t for you? Seriously, the mantra of Clojure’s design is small, simple pieces, composed together. Easy = familiar. Leiningen is “easy” because it’s like build tools in other languages. Clojure CLI / deps.edn is simple because it’s designed specifically for composition. It’s a really important distinction.
- 0 Posts
- 7 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: October 9th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
What’s missing at this point? (comparing Leiningen to tools.deps + tools.build + deps-deploy – which is the stack I’ve switched all my library projects over to)
In the Clojure sense, Leiningen is definitely easier (but it is not simpler tooling).
That was why we switched from Leiningen to Boot in 2015.
And then we switched from Boot to CLI/
deps.ednin 2018 and jumped ontools.buildas soon as it appeared.
Can you be a bit more specific about what “transitive deps” are supported by Leiningen but not tools.deps?
Do you mean BOM support in POMs? Vote on that here: https://ask.clojure.org/index.php/10892/add-support-for-bom-bill-of-materials-dependencies – there’s already a JIRA ticket and some initial work done.
Private is an illusion in Clojure. You can call
(to call a “private” function.Also, although there is no
def-, you can have private “constants”:(def ^:private meaning-of-death ..)
No, it specifically supports this now.
Nope. That’s never been true. It’s always been optional.
Fair enough. I haven’t signed JARs for years and found the whole gpg-agent thing to be a giant mess on both Mac and Windows (is it even possible on Windows?). Pretty much everyone has given up on signing at this point, I think? Clojars certainly doesn’t care any more. In other words, this feels like a straw man / moot argument.