[potetm]

The point isn't, "There are zero problems with maven. It solves all problems perfectly."

The point is, "You don't need lockfiles."

And that much is true.

(Miss you on twitter btw. Come back!)

[hyperpape]

I think Maven's approach is functionally lock-files with worse ergonomics. You can only use the dependency from the libraries you use, but you're waiting for those libraries to update.

As an escape hatch, you end up doing a lot of exclusions and overrides, basically creating a lockfile smeared over your pom.

P.S. Sadly, I think enough people have left Twitter that it's never going to be what it was again.

[Alupis]

> P.S. Sadly, I think enough people have left Twitter that it's never going to be what it was again.

Majority of those people came back after a while. The alternatives get near-zero engagement, so it's just shouting into the wind. For the ones that left over political reasons, receiving near-zero engagement takes all the fun out of posting... so they're back.

[potetm]

Of course it's functionally lock files. They do the same thing!

There's a very strong argument that manually managing deps > auto updating, regardless of the ergonomics.

P.S. You're, right, but also it's where the greatest remnant remains. :(

[jeltz]

You don't need package management by the same token. C is proof of that.

Having worked professionally in C, Java, Rust, Ruby, Perl, PHP I strongly prefer lock files. They make it so much nicer to manage dependencies.

[potetm]

"There is another tool that does exactly the job of a lockfile, but better."

vs

"You can use make to ape the job of dependency managers"

wat?