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.
Java still sucks a lot along with every JVM based language. Scala sucks less compared to others due to its flexibility. Only beginners can't read Scala code.
> Java and a few other languages appeal to those who love making software...
Now, replace "software" with "bloated, dysfunctional garbage" and you're good to go. Java devs are pretty much terrible at making software and arguing about technology.