For what it's worth, your experience matches mine as well. I see Groovy used in a lot of different situations, ranging from headless to web apps to UI. I think its dynamic nature prevents it from being used for heavy mission critical stuff, but it's certainly used in a lot of other places, and tools like Grails are getting a little bit of traction from what I can tell. And I also agree that Groovy usage seems to dwarf Scala's right now.
-- Cédric On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Sean Griffin <trenchgui...@gmail.com> wrote: > My intention is not as sensational as my subject, but it's succinct so > I'll go with it. > > In the popular JDK 7 conversation someone made this quote: "On the JVM > platform there are only two other languages that I'd consider > reasonable for adoption: Scala and Clojure." It's an interesting > statement to me given the current culture in my company. I actually > agree with this quote, but my reason isn't very scientific: those two > just "feel" like hardened options to me that move the thought barrier > forward more than others. Between the two I've chosen Scala because > a) I didn't like Lisp when I looked into it in college and b) Scala > wasn't so black and white, making it easier for me to migrate > gradually. > > Anyway, the point of my post is to discuss why Groovy is not often > mentioned in this group and is specifically left out of the quote > above. I don't like dynamic languages, so that's my reason for not > looking into it much, but people seem to like it. In my company it's > taken off like wildfire. I've tried valiantly to jumpstart Scala in > my organization, not because of fanboyism but because I honestly think/ > thought it would be the next step forward in the industry and I wanted > a head start. Despite this, Groovy is more popular hands down. I'm > just going off a feeling, but I'd place a bet that for every Scala > developer in my org there are 20 Groovy developers. Granted, most of > Groovy's usage is in tests, but it's making its way into production > code, particularly in the way of Grails. > > So I'd like to hear from others out there why this might be. I know > Groovy can be just Java and that you can gradually make your code more > "groovy", so it's easier to learn I guess? But that doesn't actually > make a ton of sense to me when I think about it because if I look at > some Groovy code that's really taking advantage of those features, > it's going to look so different than base Java that I suspect it > wouldn't be so different than a Java developer looking at someone's > Scala code. And the Scala code is type safe! And better supports > concurrency/parallelism! (I think). Is it the near nightmare that > plagued Scala 2.7 in the tooling space? > > I'm curious about everyone's thoughts... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
