picocli VS SLF4J

Picocli allows using a compiler annotation processor to generate classes at compile time instead [0].

[0]: https://github.com/remkop/picocli/blob/main/picocli-codegen/...

Picocli is a pretty good one for writing CLI apps

"and there are simply no good command line input parsing libraries for Java."

Looks like author missed the most obvious and popular OSS one: https://picocli.info/

The command line example gave me the "ick". It is usually preferrable to parse the command line arguments into one instance of a custom "command class", rather than into a list of things. Like jcommander, picocli or jbock do.

Complex argument parsing needs to be auto-generated by libraries like picocli. Even if you need something custom, it'd be quicker to write an Annotation processor from scratch than editing that file.

https://github.com/remkop/picocli

"Picocli-based applications can be ahead-of-time compiled to a GraalVM native image, with extremely fast startup time and lower memory requirements, which can be distributed as a single executable file."

https://picocli.info/quick-guide.html

Using picocli to handle your command line options gives you the best chance to automatically generate an ArgumentCompleter script in the future, but won't help you today (other than possibly making your command line handling more standardized & easier).

Picocli

Then we released a JBang! and picocli based cli that would be, on any OS running a jvm runtime :

picocli : "a mighty tiny command line interface"

A few years ago, my team moved from Java to Go. Working on Go projects, we encountered a wide variety of logging frameworks with different APIs, configuration, and formatting. We soon found ourselves longing for a logging abstraction layer like Java’s slf4j, which had proven invaluable for use in reusable libraries or configuring and debugging production systems. So, not long after moving to Go, we began working toward replacing what we had lost in slf4j.

I'm not familiar with Serilog as I code mostly in Java, use slf4j (logs to stdout) and our apps send logs to Cloudwatch using the task definition's awslogs configuration. I prefer it this way because I can customize the log configurations in my task definitions. Also the default stream name has this format prefix-name/container-name/ecs-task-id so I can easily identify the logs of the task I want to look at. I haven't experienced any downsides with this approach and our apps publish a shit ton of logs. Cloudwatch approach looks like you can customize the stream name?

slf4j is open source. You can look at the code.

Java -> Logback, Log4j2, JDK (Java Util Logging), Slf4j, e.t.c.

slf4j para padronização dos logs;

SLF4J

> My God. Logging in protobuf?

Yes, or any other data format and/or transport protocol.

I'm surprised this is up for debate.

> Logging is the lowest of all debugging utilities - its the first thing you ever do writing software - “hello world”. And, while I admire structural logging, the truth is printing strings remains (truly) the lowest common denominator across software developers.

This sort of comment is terribly miopic. You can have a logging API, and then configure your logging to transport the events anywhere, any way. This is a terribly basic feature and requirement, and one that comes out of the box with some systems. Check how SLF4J[1] is pervasive in Java, and how any SLF4J implementation offers logging to stdout or a local file as a very specific and basic usecase.

It turns out that nowadays most developers write software that runs on many computers that aren't stashed over or under their desks, and thus they need efficient and convenient ways to check what's happening either in a node or in all deployments.

[1] https://www.slf4j.org/