Mill: A better build tool for Java, Scala, and Kotlin
51 comments
·July 16, 2025frant-hartm
I wonder what people use/need apart from the usual stuff in Maven nowadays.
In the last 5 years, I didn't need anything more than:
- resource plugin - compiler plugin - jar plugin (jars, test jars, javadoc jars) - surefire/failsafe - shade plugin for repackaging to avoid classpath hell - assemble plugin - license plugin
Most of the issues I had were with the shade/assemble/license plugins.
I consider myself a Maven power-user and like the tool compared to others (Gradle is too ant-like, resulting in non-standard builds, sbt is just a torture tool).
With time, I concluded that the simpler it is, the better.
mindcrime
Ya know, I've directed a lot of criticism at Maven over the years... and most of it well-founded, I believe, even in hindsight. And yet, today, I find that of all the Java build tools, Maven is my preferred one. Part of that is me, normalizing the pain of Maven in some regards, and part of that is places where they have improved the tool. But however you break it down, it is indeed the case that for the most part Maven "just works"™. That is, at least for Java. I don't do a lot of Scala or Kotlin or anything, so no comment there. And for Groovy, I'm usually doing Grails projects which default to Gradle, so I tend to use Gradle in that context. But for plain Java projects, I honestly find Maven to be the path of least resistance.
switchbak
I've had the misfortune of having Maven forced on me for Scala projects, I just can't agree with you. The overhead of starting the compiler so often is a killer, and makes your builds much slower. Unless there's been some improvement of Zinc/Bloop/Etc with Maven since I've used it.
I think I would prefer to use Mill than Maven (I haven't used Mill myself) ... going through the video tutorial, it's clear that it's also a very simple system without some of the ancient baggage of Maven (xml, too many plugins, etc).
vips7L
I’ve had sbt and scala forced upon me for Java projects and I feel the exact opposite of you!
Sbt and Scalac are so slow they kill any productivity I could have.
debarshri
I think you can make it 10 years. It is super robust. It just works for java stuff.
Tainnor
My main problem with Maven is that it's dog slow and incremental compilation doesn't really work, especially on CI. For huge repos that's a real issue.
In a sense I feel that part of the microservice craze is due to the fact that many of our build systems are not good enough to allow us to work with huge monoliths efficiently. Gradle is a bit better (definitely faster), but comes with additional complexity. Haven't tried Mill.
wellpast
I agree 100%.
I've been around for a while, I've used many different build systems for JVM based builds (Java, Hybrid Java/Clojure, Scala) and Maven is by far the simplest most solid.
The basic reason is it's commitment to being declarative.
I understand why programmers want imperative (we're programmers) but it's just the wrong choice for a build system.
I've worked on many OSS projects. I've never pulled a Maven-based project that didn't immediately build and immediately load into my IDE. However for imperative based build systems (Gradle, Ant, now Mill) it's almost inevitable that you won't be able to get the build to work right away or pulled into your IDE in a sensible way (as IDEs cannot read imperative statemetns).
I've created many many build with Maven with many many different demands (polygot codebase, weird deployment artifacts, weird testing runtime needs, etc etc) and Maven has never let me down. Yes, in some cases I've had to write my own plugin but it was good that I had to do that; it forced me to ensure I really needed to -- the Maven plugin ecosystem is already great and covers 90+% of use cases of builds.
I've met a lot of Maven naysayers and the disdain is almost always either some weird aversion to XML (such a trivial reason to choose a worser build system) and/or because the programmer never took the time to understand the rather simple Maven runtime semantics and architecture.
ackfoobar
> imperative based build systems (Gradle, Ant, now Mill)
Build code in Mill is pretty declarative. You're using the word to mean "not 'pure, serialized data'".
> IDEs cannot read imperative statemetns
They can, however, run the code to dump the structure.
It's easy for code to embed pure data; on the flip side it's hard to encode behaviour in serialized data. More often than custom Maven plugins I see people just drop down to using shell.
switchbak
Not a lot of love for Mill in these comments. I'm interested in what it has to offer.
I find SBT just has a lot of unnecessary abstractions and complexity. It's so opaque that I'm sure I'm leaving a lot of performance on the table with hidden antipatterns. Mill seems to solve that by being 'boring' (in a good way). Being able to trace what's happening in my IDE would be lovely - and something I don't have in SBT or Maven either.
Now that we also have fast running native CLI tooling, I think it's worth another look over SBT.
vips7L
A lot of people on the Java side have seen what being able to script your build turns into with Gradle. They've also don't want to learn Scala to do their build.
elric
Reading these comments I'm always amused by how different people/teams have radically different needs & preferences, and how other people seem to be dismissive of those. "I don't need anything more than maven", "maven is too slow", "if it's not bootstrappable I don't want it", "there should only be one ultimate build tool", "I hate programming my build", etc.
These opinions are all valid, but only if they don't discount the validity of other strategies. There is no universal law of optimal build practices. There are cases where build performance is critical, and others where it's not. There are cases where configurability is important, and there are cases where it's not. Etc.
Personally, I love having a programmable build in plain Java, which is why I enjoy bld [1] these days. I'm probably the only person you'll ever meet who actually enjoyed using ant, so you're welcome to take my opinion with as much salt as you need to digest that.
kerblang
Ant worked well because it was extremely _explicit_: You had to say what you wanted. This gave it a lot of flexibility. Unlike some other tools, you aren't running in front of a train trying to get it to stop and let you on. It doesn't go anywhere or do anything until you say so. The cost was pretty much zero defaults and a good bit of boilerplate.
I think a lot of people expected this from Gradle because the idea of "build as programming" seemed like it would give that stop-the-train-let-me-on-already ability. I don't know that it really worked out that way. Maven is all about running devs over, but it's faster than Gradle, which tries to start a daemon just like SBT.
Anyhow... this bld thing looks interesting, thanks...
lucumo
> These opinions are all valid, but only if they don't discount the validity of other strategies.
I strongly agree with this as a general principle in nearly all technical discussions.
But also, if the discussion starts with declaring something is better than everything else (as the title here), then there's really no salvaging it anymore.
wiseowise
> There are cases where build performance is critical, *and others where it's not.*
I'm curious about those.
octopoc
IMO there should be one build system for each language and it should be good at the basics, and if you need more then you should write your own (minimal-dependency) build script in the same language as the code you're building, and in that system you do things like generate build files for the big, complicated thing you're trying to build.
In Java terms, if you have a big complicated Java repo that requires lots of steps to build, you should have a separate Java project in there just for building the main repo. That separate Java project should be built and run with maven, and that separate project can do all kinds of fancy things, but ultimately it will be generating maven projects or calling maven with special command line parameters or something like that.
I even put the logic for CI in my build project like this. It makes everything reproducible and debuggable. How cool is it to be able to put a breakpoint in your build script? How about stepping through your CI code? Things are way simpler this way.
I eschew frameworks in this custom build tool, because the build code should look conventional for whatever language it's written in.
ivolimmen
It's nice that there are options but i'm sticking with maven. I hate programming my build; maven is just a configuration file.
jpitz
Which works fine.....until it doesn't. Many non-trivial builds require custom logic, and trying to do that in maven was painful the last time I tried it.
ackfoobar
Yeah. It's Greenspun's tenth rule.
If you have any complexity, programming against a good abstraction (Gradle is not good good, but decent) beats finding the magical incantation of configuration to get the tool to do what you want.
switchbak
I think folks just get used to Maven-induced constraints (this applies to SBT, Bazel, others too). When you free yourself from that you realize: builds just aren't all that hard, it's often the tooling that becomes a real limitation.
Of course, sometimes the limitations are good: preventing you from doing "the wrong thing", or encouraging cacheability, etc. But as with any abstraction layer - getting a model that fits across so many disparate use cases can be very challenging.
lenkite
That is why maven offers a plugin model for your custom logic that can be written in Java/Kotlin and a well defined lifecycle model where you can configure your plugin declaratively.
You can also download custom CLI tools and invoke them as part of a well-defined build lifecycle.
gf000
And then fail to do proper incremental builds, leaving you with no choice but a faulty build or clean installing on every occasion.
At the very least, I would move to Gradle which does have proper knowledge of your build graph. But Mill is also a good choice and fills the same niche, with the added benefit that imperative-looking ordinary scala code will simply become a parallelizable, cacheable build graph.
spullara
I have found that if it is hard to do in maven you probably shouldn't be doing it or there is a better way.
throwaway7783
Out of curiosity, what is non-trivial in this context?
chriswarbo
> maven is just a configuration file
Even better, Maven "POMs" are written in a common, standard format (XML); so we can transform and manipulate it using off-the-shelf tools, if we really want to. I've found this useful e.g. in pre-commit hooks (tidy the formatting, checking/linting, etc.); in Nix builds (e.g. removing the version number, so it doesn't affect the hash and avoids spurious rebuilds); etc. That was a nice bonus when I switched some projects from SBT to Maven (due to SBT being wildly unreproducible).
henry700
I hate wrangling with configuration to make an amalgamation of plugins do what's expected in the expected order for my build; Gradle is just code and a DSL
askonomm
If I would've gotten a Euro for every time "is just a DSL" was a reason everything was hard to debug and prone to failure, I'd have many Euros by now.
gf000
Well, good luck debugging a multi-module maven pom file, then. You can get terrible error messages from both, to be honest.
imoverclocked
It’s two DSLs which are versioned and whose behaviors are different.
Gradle groovy is extremely permissive (eg: you can access private class instance variables without even knowing that you are doing so)
Kotlin lacks that permissive quality in exchange for much easier introspection.
It’s often trivial to move from one to the other but those edge cases can find you in a codebase of any complexity.
spullara
this is a horrific build file: https://github.com/swaldman/c3p0/blob/0.11.x/build.mill
imoverclocked
You can write bad code in any language. Don’t ask me how I know :)
billmcneale
Yeah, hard to see how better this is than Gradle. If anything, it's worse by the mere fact this is Scala, but it's really so incredibly verbose to accomplish basic tasks such as upload to Sonatype.
spullara
making it easier to generate maven poms I thought was a reasonable idea 18 years ago but gradle and other tools all went down the "making the build Turing complete" path.
wiseowise
I just want `uv`/`npm`/`crate` for JVM. Is that too much to ask?
Can someone from Astral fix Java too, please?
Tainnor
JVM build tools have to do much more than just dependency management because of how the JVM works (e.g. packaging resources). It's not really comparable.
pi_22by7
Honestly, I'm getting tired of the endless parade of "better" build tools. Maven works fine for most of what I do, even if it's occasionally painful. Gradle is... well, Gradle has its moments.
That said, Mill's performance claims sound interesting. If it really can cut build times by 3-6x, that's really amazing. I've wasted too much time in my life waiting for builds, especially on larger projects.
The Scala thing is a bit of a turn-off though. I get that you don't need to write Scala yourself, but now I'm dragging in the Scala ecosystem just to build my Java project? Feels heavy.
The IDE integration sounds nice in theory - being able to actually navigate and understand your build in IntelliJ would be pretty sweet.
Still not sure the switching costs are worth it unless you're really hitting Maven/Gradle pain points. But if I was starting a new project from scratch, might be worth a look.
le-mark
When has build time been an issue though? Running tests have taken the most time by far on every project I’ve ever worked on.
HiPhish
Is it bootstrappable? I mean really bootstrappable, not "the bootstrap script will download a binary from some server". This is where both Maven and Gradle fail (at least the last time I checked). Kotlin and Scala also have the problem that their compilers themselves are not bootstrappable either.
null
zcw100
I don't know why I don't see anyone ever mention JeKa. https://jeka.dev/
You don't have to learn a separate language or some weird config.
pbh101
Anyone have a comparison to Bazel? They only compare to JVM-centric tools eg Maven, sbt, Gradle.
frostirosti
Bazel is just such a nightmare for me. It's amazing when someone understands it really well and can set things up. But for anything short of that, being on the hook to fix or debug things makes it a nightmare. That and trying to port anything over from sbt, like scalafix for instance, to bazel is a pain.
Also too, bazel has this issue of googleability? like I feel like I can take any build issue I've run into in sbt and find the solution and an example by just searching, but with Bazel, anything outside of the happy path is a recipe for pain
Related. Others?
Mill as a direct style build tool - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43943792 - May 2025 (9 comments)
Why does Mill use Scala? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42997496 - Feb 2025 (75 comments)
Mill: A fast JVM build tool for Java and Scala - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41967734 - Oct 2024 (162 comments)
What's So Special About the Mill Scala Build Tool - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38877882 - Jan 2024 (1 comment)
Mill: A Build Tool Based on Pure Functional Programming - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25925107 - Jan 2021 (1 comment)
Mill: Better Scala Builds - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16775545 - April 2018 (16 comments)