The Hidden Costs of Gradle

(Music: YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer)

Introduction

In the rush to embrace shiny, modern tools, the software development community has found itself entangled in a web of complexity, maintenance nightmares, and hidden pitfalls. One of the most glaring examples is the rapid adoption of Gradle as the default build tool in many projects, often without fully considering the consequences.

While Gradle is marketed as the “next-generation” build tool, its widespread adoption has introduced a host of challenges that many developers, especially those new to the industry, fail to recognize. This article isn’t about nostalgia or clinging to the past, it’s about pragmatism and focusing on what truly matters.

What Do We Really Need?

Let’s step back for a moment and think about our needs. At the end of the day, we want a simple JAR file, an artifact that works. You could do it simply with the build in javac command, but a tool brings more a bit of comfort. Still, do we really need to set up an entire ecosystem just to achieve this? Gradle’s reliance on wrappers, dependencies, and version-specific configurations adds unnecessary layers of complexity.

Take, for example, the Gradle Wrapper. Unlike Maven’s straightforward self-downloading wrapper, Gradle requires binary files to be committed to your repository. These binaries bloat your Git repository over time, eventually causing performance issues. For an industry striving to embrace clean, lightweight solutions, this feels like a step backward.

Java Version Constraints: A Case of Overengineering

One of Gradle’s most puzzling limitations is its strict dependency on specific Java versions. While Maven thrives in a world of Java’s backward and forward compatibility, Gradle forces you to manage multiple Java versions across projects. This isn’t flexibility; it’s a headache. Tools like SDKMAN or Gradle-Java-Fix exist as a workaround, but why are we solving problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place?

DSL Fragility: A Recipe for Disaster

Gradle’s Groovy or Kotlin DSL might look appealing at first glance, but this beauty fades over time. Both DSLs are prone to breaking changes with Gradle updates, and their syntax evolution can render older projects unbuildable. Maven’s XML may not win beauty contests, but its stability and simplicity mean you can open a Maven project years later and expect it to work. The learning curve of Maven is pretty flat, while the Gradle Universe is endless.

Gradle’s monolithic build structure also introduces fragility. A single misstep in your DSL, a broken plugin, or even a misplaced print statement can bring your entire build process to a halt. Maven, by contrast, operates in isolated sandboxes, ensuring that failures are localized and easier to debug - the build would not fail on tasks which are broken and not executed.

Gradle Plugins are fighting with the same issues, to be compatible to the DSL, Gradle Version and Gradle API. This explains why the quality of Gradle Plugins is really rare. It's one of the reason why there is no auto update plugin. Gradle is too diverse.

Updates and Dependency Management: A Tale of Two Systems

Keeping dependencies up-to-date is a cornerstone of secure and maintainable software. Maven excels here by just execute plugins on CLI level like mvn versions:use-latest-versions to update our dependencies, mvn license:add-third-party to generate and check licenses of the subdependencies, mvn org.owasp:dependency-check-maven:check for security checks and many more. This CLI plugin runner feature requires no additional configuration, making them perfect for automated CI/CD pipelines.

Gradle, on the other hand, offers no equivalent. Updating dependencies often requires external tools like Dependabot. Fine if you’re on GitHub but useless elsewhere. Worse, Gradle often ties your Groovy, Kotlin, Spring Boot version (or similar frameworks) to specific Gradle versions, multiplying maintenance overhead.

The Long-Term View: Gradle’s Maintenance Hell

Fast-forward a few years. Maven projects remain stable, with artifacts preserved in Maven Central. Gradle projects? Not so much. Plugins disappear, dependencies break, and your build scripts crumble under the weight of obsolescence. Gradle is a “works for now” solution, with no guarantees of longevity.

Developers often defend Gradle with claims of flexibility and developer experience. But how much of this “experience” is lost when you’re debugging inscrutable errors or rewriting build files after every update? Tools should simplify our lives, not add complexity disguised as innovation. It feels like coding another app. Gradle build files needs a lot more maintenance.

The Bigger Picture: What Are We Losing?

The widespread adoption of Gradle isn’t just a technical issue; it’s a cultural one. As an industry, we’ve become infatuated with newness at the expense of quality, stability, and understanding. Developers dismiss Maven’s XML as outdated without realizing that it’s one of the most stable and extensible formats we have.

What’s worse is that this same mindset bleeds into other decisions: swapping dependencies without considering alternatives, relying on frameworks over plain Java, and focusing on trends over fundamentals. The result is a generation of developers more skilled at gluing things together than truly understanding how they work.

Conclusion: Stop. Think. Choose Wisely.

This article isn’t about saying “use Maven” or “avoid Gradle” entirely. It’s about asking the hard questions: Why are we choosing this tool? What are the long-term implications? Are we solving real problems or chasing trends?

Gradle might have its place, but as it stands, its flaws outweigh its benefits for many projects. The next time you’re tempted to adopt it, pause and ask yourself if you’re making an informed decision or just following the crowd.

Let’s build systems that last, not ones that leave us burning out on maintenance and debugging.