I've lately been in a position of offering occasional advice to Lee Spector, a former professor of mine, on various topics related to Clojure, which he'd recently discovered and (as far as I can tell) adopted with some enthusiasm. I think I'd been of some help to him – that is, until the topic of build tooling came up.
He wanted to "export" a Processing sketch – written in Clojure against the Processing core library and the clj-processing wrapper – to an applet jar, which is the most common deployment path in that sphere. Helpfully, the Processing "IDE" (I'm not sure what it's actually called; the Processing.app that one launches on OS X that provides a Java-ish code editor and an integrated build/run environment) provides a one-button-push export feature that wraps up a sketch into an applet jar and an HTML file one can copy to a web server for easy viewing.
It's an awesome, targeted solution and clearly hits the sweet spot for people using the Processing kit.
Stepping out of the manicured garden of Processing.app comes with a cost, though; you've lost that vertically-integrated user experience, and have to tangle with everything the JVM ecosystem has to throw at you. There is no big, simple button to push to get your ready-to-deploy artifact out of your development environment.
So, Lee asked for some direction on how to regain that simple deployment process; my response pointing at the various build tooling options in the JVM neighborhood ended up provoking pain more than anything else due to some fundamental mismatches between our expectations and background. You can read the full thread here, but I'll attempt to distill the useful bits here.
Building software for deployment is a damn tricky problem, but it's far more of a people problem than a technical problem: the diversity and complexity of solutions is such that the only known-good solution is immersive exposure to documentation, examples, and community.
In response, Lee eventually compared the current state of affairs with regard to build/deployment issues in Clojure and on the JVM as if one were asking a novelist to learn how to construct a word processor's interface before being able to write:
This is, I know, a caricature, but imagine a word processing app that came with no GUI because hey, people have different GUI preferences and a lot of people are going to want things to look different. So here's a word processing app but if you really want to use it and actually see your document you have to immerse yourself in the documentation, examples, and community of GUI design and libraries. This is not helpful to the novelist who wants a word processor! On the other hand if you provide a word processor with a functioning GUI but also make it customizable, or even easy to swap in entirely different GUI components, then that's all for the good. I (and many others, including many who are long-term/professional programmers, but just not in this ecosystem) are like the novelists here. We want a system that allows us to write Clojure code and make it go (including producing an executable), and any default way of doing that that works will be great. Requiring immersive exposure to documentation, examples, and community to complete a basic step in "making it go" seems to me to be an unnecessary impediment to a large class of potential users.
My response was probably inevitable, as steeped in the ethos of the JVM as I am; nevertheless, Lee's perspective ended up allowing me to elucidate more clearly than I ever have why I use tools like Maven rather than far simpler (and yes, more approachable) tools like Leiningen, Cake, et al.:
At one time, there were only a few modes of distribution (essentially: build executable for one, perhaps two platforms, send over the wire, done). That time is long past though, and software developers cannot afford to be strict domain experts that stick to their knitting and write code: the modes of distribution of one's software are at least as critical as the software itself. Beyond that, interests of quality and continuity have pushed the development and adoption of practices like continuous integration and deployment, which require a rigor w.r.t. configuration management and build tooling as serious as one pays to one's "real" domain. To match up with your analogy, programmers are not simply novelists, but must further concern themselves with printing, binding, and channel distribution. Within that context, I much prefer tools and practices that can ramp from fairly simple cases (as described in my blog), up to the heights of build automation, automated functional testing, and continuous deployment. One should not have to switch horses at various stages of the growth of a project just to accommodate changing tooling requirements. Thus, I encourage the use of maven, which has (IMO) the least uneven character along that spectrum; ant, with the caveat that you'll strain to beat it into shape for more sophisticated tasks, especially in larger projects; and gradle, which appears to be well on its way to being competitive with maven in most if not all circumstances.
In all honesty, I envy Lee and those with similar sensibilities…
The complexity that is visited upon us when writing software is enough; in an ideal world, we shouldn't have to develop all this extraneous expertise in how to build, package, and deploy that software as well. There are a few things in software that I know how to do really well that make me slightly unique, and I wish I could concentrate on those rather than becoming a generalist in this, yet another vector, which is fundamentally a means to an end. History and circumstance seem to be stacked against me at the moment, though.
Especially in comparison with monocultures like the .NET and iOS worlds, which have benevolent stewards that helpfully provide well-paved garden paths for such mundane activities, those of us aligned with more "open" platforms like the JVM, Ruby, Python, etc. are constantly pulled in multiple directions by the allure of the shiniest tech on the world and the dreary reality that our vision consistently outpaces our reach when it comes to harnessing the gnarly underbelly of that snazzy kit in any kind of sensible way. Along the way, the most pernicious thing happens: like the apocryphal frog in a warming pot, we find ourselves lulled into thinking that the state of affairs is normal and reasonable and perfectly sane.
Of course, there's nothing sane about it…but I'm afraid that doesn't mean a real solution is at hand. Perhaps knowing that I'm the frog now is progress enough for now.