Just about every Java project that I've seen either uses Maven or Ant. They are fine tools and I think just about any project can use them. But what ever happened to make? It's used for a variety of non-Java projects and can easily handle Java. Sure you have to download make.exe if you use Windows, but Ant and Maven also don't come with the JDK.
Is there some fundamental flaw with make when used with Java? Is it just because Ant and Maven are written in Java?
The fundamental issue with Make and Java is that Make works on the premise that you have specify a dependency, and then a rule to resolve that dependency.
With basic C, that typically "to convert a main.c file to a main.o file, run "cc main.c".
You can do that in java, but you quickly learn something.
Mostly that the javac compiler is slow to start up.
The difference between:
javac Main.java
javac This.java
javac That.java
javac Other.java
and
javac Main.java This.java That.java Other.java
is night and day.
Exacerbate that with hundreds of classes, and it just becomes untenable.
Then you combine that with the fact that java tends to be organized as groups of files in directories, vs C and others which tend towards a flatter structure. Make doesn't have much direct support to working with hierarchies of files.
Make also isn't very good at determining what files are out of date, at a collection level.
With Ant, it will go through and sum up all of the files that are out of date, and then compile them in one go. Make will simply call the java compiler on each individual file. Having make NOT do this requires enough external tooling to really show that Make is not quite up to the task.
That's why alternatives like Ant and Maven rose up.
The venerable make program handles separately compiled languages like C and C++ reasonably well. You compile a module, it uses #include to pull in the text of other include files, and writes a single object file as output. The compiler is very much a one-at-a-time system, with a separate linking step to bind the object files into an executable binary.
However, in Java, the compiler has to actually compile other classes that you import with import. Although it would be possible to write something that generated all the necessary dependencies from Java source code, so that make would build classes in the correct order one at a time, this still wouldn't handle cases such as circular dependencies.
The Java compiler can also be more efficient by caching the compiled results of other classes while compiling further classes that depend on the results of ones already compiled. This sort of automatic dependency evaluation is not really possible with make alone.
Actually, make can handle the recompilation in one command of all outdated java files. Change the first line if you don't want to compile all files in the directory or want a specific order...
JAVA_FILES:=$(wildcard *.java)
#
# the rest is independent of the directory
#
JAVA_CLASSES:=$(patsubst %.java,%.class,$(JAVA_FILES))
.PHONY: classes
LIST:=
classes: $(JAVA_CLASSES)
if [ ! -z "$(LIST)" ] ; then \
javac $(LIST) ; \
fi
$(JAVA_CLASSES) : %.class : %.java
$(eval LIST+=$$<)
The question is based on an incorrect assumption: a non-trivial number of developers do use make. See Java Build Tools: Ant vs. Maven. As for why a developer wouldn't use make: many developers either have never used make, or used it and hated it with a fire that burns hotter than a thousand suns. As such, they use alternative tools.
All the other answers about the technical merits of each are true. Ant and Maven may be better suited to Java than make, or as Hank Gay points out, they may not :)
However, you asked if it matters that Ant and Maven are written in Java. Although on StackOverflow we don't consider such thoughts (closed! not-programming-related! etc.), OF COURSE THAT'S PART OF THE THING. On rails we use Rake, C dudes use make, and in Java we use Ant and Maven. While it's true that the Ant or Maven developers will look after the Java developer perhaps better than others, there's also another question: what do you write Ant tasks in? Java. If you're a Java developer, that's an easy fit.
So yeah, part of it is to use tools written in the language you are tooling.
Ant and later Maven were designed to solve some headaches caused by Make ( while creating new ones in the process ) It is just evolution.
...Soon thereafter, several open source Java projects realized that Ant could solve the problems they had with Makefiles....
From http://ant.apache.org/faq.html#history
Whether they solve anything or just create an extra format to learn is a subjective topic. The truth is that's pretty much the history of every new invention: The creator says it solves a lot of problems and the original users say those are virtues.
The main advantage it has, is the possibility to integrate with java.
I guess a similar history would be with rake for instance.
Short answer: Because make isn't good. Even on the C front you see many alternatives popping up.
Long answer: make has several flaws that make it barely suitable for compiling C, and unsuitable at all for compiling Java. You can force it to compile Java, if you want, but expect running into issues, some of which do not have a suitable solution or workaround. Here are a few:
make inherently expects files to have a tree-like dependency on each other, in which one file is the output of building several others. This already backfires in C when dealing with header files. make requires a make-specific include file to be generated to represent the dependency of a C file on its header files, so a change to the latter would cause the prior to be rebuilt. However, since the C file itself isn't recreated (merely rebuilt), make often requires specifying the target as .PHONY. Fortunately, GCC supports generating those files automatically.
In Java, dependency can be circular, and there's no tool for auto-generating class dependencies in make format. ant's Depend task can, instead, read the class file directly, determine which classes it imports, and delete the class file if any of them are out of date. Without this, any non-trivial dependency may result in you being forced to use repeated clean builds, removing any advantage of using a build tool.
While neither Java nor C encourage using spaces in your source code filenames, in make this can be problem even if the spaces are in the file path. Consider, for example, if your source code exists in C:\My Documents\My Code\program\src. This would be enough to break make. This is because make treats filenames as strings. ant treats paths as special objects.
make requires explicitly setting which files are to be built for each target. ant allows specifying a folder which is to be auto-scanned for source files. It may seem like a minor convenience, but consider that in Java each new class requires a new file. Adding files to the project can become a big hassle fast.
And the biggest problem with make:
Java's motto is "compile once run everywhere". But restricting that compilation to POSIX-based systems, in which Java support is actually the worst, is not the intention.
Build rules in make are essentially small bash scripts. Even though there is a port of make to Windows, for it to work properly, it has to be bundled with a port of bash, which includes a POSIX emulation layer for the file system.
This comes in two varieties:
MSYS which tries to limit the POSIX translation to file paths, and can therefore have unpleasant gotchas when running external tools not made especially for it.
cygwin which provides a complete POSIX emulation. The resulting programs, however, tend to still rely on that emulation layer.
For that reason, on Windows, the standard build tool isn't even make at all, but rather MSBuild, which is also an XML-based tool, closer in principle to ant.
By contrast, ant is built in Java, can run everywhere, and contains internal tools, called "tasks", for manipulating files and executing commands in a platform-independent way. It's sufficiently versatile that you can actually have an easier time building a C program in Windows using ant than using make.
And one last minor one:
You may not initially notice this, but C programs generally aren't shipped with a Makefile. They are shipped with a CMakeLists.txt, or a bash configuration script, which generates the actual Makefile. By contrast, the source of a Java program built using ant is shipped with an ant script pre-built. A Makefile is a product of other tools - That's how much make is unsuitable to be a build tool on its own. ant is standalone, and deals with everything you need for your Java build process, without any additional requirements or dependencies.
When you run ant on any platform, it Just Works(tm). You can't get that with make. It's incredibly platform and configuration dependent.
I think the most likely explanation is that several factors discouraged the use of make within the Java community in a critical period of time (the late 1990s):
In short, while make most certainly can be used for Java projects, there was a moment of opportunity to make it the de facto Java build tool. That moment has passed.
Unless I am no one the assumption no one is (mis)using make for java is wrong.
"Managing Projects with GNU Make" (available under GFDL) contains a complete chapter dedicated to using make with java projects.
As it contains a long (and hopefully fair) list of the pros and cons of using make instead of other tools you might want to take a look there. (see: http://oreilly.com/catalog/make3/book/)
One big reason is that both Ant and Maven (and most java targeted SCM, CI and IDE tools) are written in java by/for java developers. This makes it simpler to integrate into your development environment and allows other tools such as the IDE and CI servers to integrate portions of the ant/maven libraries within the build/deployment infrastructure.
ApacheAnt isn't anything like Make. Make is about describing dependencies between files, and how to build files. Ant is about dependencies between "tasks", and is really more of a way of gluing build scripts together.
it may helps you AntVsMake
I've never used GNU Make for Java projects, but I used to use jmk. Sadly it hasn't been updated since 2002.
It had some Java-specific functionality but was small enough to include in your source tarball without significantly increasing its size.
Nowadays I just assume any Java developer I share code with has Ant installed.
make. And having a makefile which only works on one system isn't very nice for a cross-platform language. – Joey