[etrepen]

> XML syntax is very simple

Assembly is also very simple. Basic is also very simple. Why don't we program in these "simple" languages?

> has very good IDE support (navigation, autocompletion - thanks to xml schema, etc.. can any IDE autocomplete dependencies from repository in .sbt files?

Just like .sbt sources, since it's Scala + the SBT API + some operators.

> If you exclude dependencies than for more complex projects the no of lines in pom.xml build files is somewhere between 50 - 100 % more, so it is not like .sbt (or gradle - which I find superior to both) is 10 times less verbose.

SBT is a dsl in Scala. It's at least 10 times more powerful compared to java & xml. Even the dependency system is far simpler in .sbt files. XML is just bloated, full with noise and primitivity. Just like java.

> or gradle - which I find superior to both

Why?

> Here is a list of few glyphs from there: ._ := () ++ ++= ]( % target := target.value / "sbt-routes-compiler",

If you don't have a clue what's "++" and such operators and you're too lazy to search for it then you're not a programmer just a joke. Seriouly, how can you complaing about a few operators in a dsl?! "](" isn't even an operator, "[]" is the generic parameters' syntax while "()" are just parens. This is the problem with you java devs, you're too lazy to learn. And that's what hits your quality.