

Leiningen 1.2 Released (Clojure build tool & more) - ihodes
http://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/blob/master/NEWS

======
trydionel

      * Don't allow "new" task to create *jure names.
    

I'm not able to verify this ATM, but does this mean libraries with names
ending in -jure are strictly disallowed? Granted there's probably plenty of
mylibjure sort of names out there now, but this change would be quite bold.

~~~
technomancy
No, you got it right. Got tired of the puns.

You can work on projects with names like that, you just can't use the "new"
task to generate them. The official workaround is to generate a skeleton with
a different name and rename it, or to use Leiningen 1.1.0. Awkward, but hey--
it's an edge case. =)

~~~
gphil
Wow, that's a pretty bold executive decision to force people to come up with
more creative names. Not that I disagree with it, though.

------
jm3
I love that you reference "Leiningen vs. the Ants" in the name. Etymology
meets entomology!

------
joubert
I use ant to build my Clojure stuff. Why should I prefer Leiningen (did I
spell that correctly?)

~~~
technomancy
If you use ant and it doesn't drive you crazy, it may be that your project
just has very simple needs. If you read through the tutorial
([http://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/blob/master/TUTORIAL...](http://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/blob/master/TUTORIAL.md))
and don't find anything in there you need then that's great; you should
consider yourself lucky.

The main thing you miss out on with ant is dependencies. Not only does
Leiningen make it easy to depend upon other libraries, it also makes it easy
to publish your library so others can depend on it. It's an ecosystem thing.

If that's not a big deal for you then the only advantage Leiningen could offer
would be having one fewer violation of Greenspun's Tenth law in your life.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
What put me off leiningen a while a go is the mention of Maven. I'm not going
to touch anything related to Maven because at some point something will go
wrong and I will be thrown into Maven hell. Maven is evil. It's the EJB of
build management.

Also, I think that build management and generally dependency/package
management is done completely wrong. The principle seems to be to manage large
numbers of fine-grained, versioned, recursive dependencies. I don't think this
will ever work well. The inherent complexity of that idea is always going to
leak. We need to question the idea that modularity is always good.

~~~
regularfry
I think you're probably right in the end, but a) what we've got is better than
nothing (although it might be a big old dead end), and b) it doesn't look like
there's a better option for building on other peoples' work.

