not re-fixed {@link
abc} so any such links are simply deleted in any doc output. IDEA is in no way
responsibility of Groovy team but I mention it as one of the three areas that
impact the total end-to-end Groovy experience.
Jason
-Original Message-----
From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:b
On 27.06.2016 21:47, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
What I'd like to see in Groovy or Kotlin is a way to be a static language but declare a
type as dynamic or a certain type of "dynamic" (like gpath/xml where you know
you are accessing map of maps).
why is as method level annotation not good enough
out because it can't do everything
Groovy can do. So now we are down to asking for improvements to the static side
of Groovy so we can have it all :).
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:blackd...@gmx.org]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 3:23 PM
To: users@groovy.apache.o
On 27.06.2016 03:44, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
For the static side, Kotlin is a very interesting language compared to Groovy looking at
total new projects and teams not strongly trained in either, although even in that case
my intuition tells me that Groovy would be easier to learn as it is more
s the case of saying Groovy is
useful for only a small part of an app, because you can still get static
benefits of refactoring and compile-time checking if you wish.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Russel Winder [mailto:rus...@winder.org.uk]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 12:39 PM
To: users
On 06/26/2016 11:18 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 26.06.2016 09:11, Mr Andersson wrote:
On 06/24/2016 10:55 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 24.06.2016 18:12, Mr Andersson wrote:
[...]
static Groovy is on par most of the time, dynamic Groovy depends, but
I think it is more in the range of b
I think many of the issues can be solved by the mythical beast called
Groovy 3. It will however, require backwards compatiblity to be broken.
Quite a number of people will probably be opposed to this and they will
have good reason to be as well. This leaves the future of the language
in limbo.
On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 14:30 +0200, Mr Andersson wrote:
>
[…]
> I do think that's the biggest problem. Groovy was the second largest
> JVM
> language in 2010, but it is not really that big anymore, mostly of
> competition by static languages such as Scala and Kotlin.
Groovy has no serious tracti
On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 09:59 +0200, Thibault Kruse wrote:
> I don't think the dynamic nature of Groovy is in general regarded as
> the weakest point of Groovy right now. However, I believe a fully
> static Groovy may still be preferrable than the dynamic Groovy,
> mostly
> from the point of view of
On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 18:44 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> A strong -1 for both options. We already have 2 variants of Groovy
> today,
> indy and non indy, and in practice *nobody uses the invokedynamic
> version*
> because it's impractical to use. Typically projects depend on
> `groovy.jar`
> or
On 26.06.2016 09:11, Mr Andersson wrote:
On 06/24/2016 10:55 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 24.06.2016 18:12, Mr Andersson wrote:
[...]
static Groovy is on par most of the time, dynamic Groovy depends, but
I think it is more in the range of being 2.5 times java (100ms runtime
becomes 250ms).
On 06/24/2016 10:55 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 24.06.2016 18:12, Mr Andersson wrote:
[...]
static Groovy is on par most of the time, dynamic Groovy depends, but
I think it is more in the range of being 2.5 times java (100ms runtime
becomes 250ms). I think that is close enough and there
On 24.06.2016 18:12, Mr Andersson wrote:
[...]
static Groovy is on par most of the time, dynamic Groovy depends, but
I think it is more in the range of being 2.5 times java (100ms runtime
becomes 250ms). I think that is close enough and there is still
some potential
But a Java fork would be
On 06/22/2016 07:45 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 22.06.2016 18:55, Mr Andersson wrote:
[...]
We, at our company can only ship groovy if it is fully static, no way to
manipulate. It's difficult to hammer it through otherwise. Big
enterprise JEE companies don't take risks, especially when the
On 23.06.2016 15:50, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
[...]
As for switching purely to indy, I've heard a lot of issues on this list where
people say it's slower, or at least the same.
Has that changed now?
the problem is that the work on this part of the JDK is still ongoing.
Each test has to be done
On 23.06.2016 15:57, Wilson MacGyver wrote:
I think what Jochen means is, Indy requires jdk 7. Once 9 comes out, it
will be safe to drop Jdk 6 support.
Thus no need for non Indy version
basing only on indy means no JDK 6 support anymore, that is very right.
But there are actually a couple of
iginal Message-
> From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:blackd...@gmx.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:49 AM
> To: users@groovy.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
>
>
>
> On 23.06.2016 08:00, Thibault Kruse wrote:
> >
riginal Message-
From: Jochen Theodorou [mailto:blackd...@gmx.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:49 AM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
On 23.06.2016 08:00, Thibault Kruse wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Céd
On 23.06.2016 08:00, Thibault Kruse wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
A strong -1 for both options. We already have 2 variants of Groovy today,
indy and non indy, and in practice *nobody uses the invokedynamic version*
because it's impractical to use. ...
Adding a
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> A strong -1 for both options. We already have 2 variants of Groovy today,
> indy and non indy, and in practice *nobody uses the invokedynamic version*
> because it's impractical to use. ...
> Adding a new dimension, which is orthogonal to i
On 22.06.2016 18:55, Mr Andersson wrote:
[...]
We, at our company can only ship groovy if it is fully static, no way to
manipulate. It's difficult to hammer it through otherwise. Big
enterprise JEE companies don't take risks, especially when the tools are
handed over to 5 000 dev across the globe
r.andersson@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:31 PM
*To:* users@groovy.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire
project
On 06/21/2016 08:08 PM, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
I would say that if you use the config script, then it would m
On 22.06.2016 14:26, Mr Andersson wrote:
[...]
I am not saying that, only that my uncompiled code has to be static. As
if it has the annotation on.
well, then you actually want @TypeChecked I guess
A global flag might be problematic for relying on external libraries,
but if they are already c
On 22.06.2016 13:41, Russel Winder wrote:
In case no-one has mentioned this…
On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 14:24 +0200, Mr Andersson wrote:
[…]
I've heard about Groovy++ but I believe that's dead by now, no?
[…]
Yes Groovy++ is gone. Static compilation of normal Groovy code is what
to do.
and
On 06/22/2016 07:02 PM, Mr Andersson wrote:
On 06/22/2016 03:06 PM, Alessio Stalla wrote:
Also good tests help. However I agree that if you prefer the
tradeoffs that static languages give you then probably Groovy is not
the wisest choice.
It's nice to have good speed in critical sections
On 06/22/2016 03:06 PM, Alessio Stalla wrote:
Also good tests help. However I agree that if you prefer the tradeoffs
that static languages give you then probably Groovy is not the wisest
choice.
It's nice to have good speed in critical sections of the code without
having to rewrite them in
precisely I am thinking about
types like XmlSlurper's return implementing the new marker interface, and
builders as well.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Thibault Kruse [mailto:tibokr...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:59 AM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re
Also good tests help. However I agree that if you prefer the tradeoffs that
static languages give you then probably Groovy is not the wisest choice.
It's nice to have good speed in critical sections of the code without
having to rewrite them in Java, but a fully static Groovy IMHO is just a
quirkie
> People want to be able to refactor without risking of the code eventually
> breaking totally, and that's the problem with Groovy. Code will eventually
> become stale and stop working if it is put on layway for a while. No compile
> time checks is a problem for anyone interested in code quality.
l Message-
From: Thibault Kruse [mailto:tibokr...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:59 AM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
I don't think the dynamic nature of Groovy is in general regarded as the
weakes
figscript src/conf/config.groovy src/main/groovy/MyClass.groovy
Is not needed here.
Jason
From: Cédric Champeau [mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire proj
On 06/22/2016 01:12 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
On 22.06.2016 09:59, Thibault Kruse wrote:
I don't think the dynamic nature of Groovy is in general regarded as
the weakest point of Groovy right now. However, I believe a fully
static Groovy may still be preferrable than the dynamic Groovy, mo
In case no-one has mentioned this…
On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 14:24 +0200, Mr Andersson wrote:
>
[…]
> I've heard about Groovy++ but I believe that's dead by now, no?
>
> […]
Yes Groovy++ is gone. Static compilation of normal Groovy code is what
to do.
--
Russel.
=
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
> Yes, there are bugs, but the static side has surely more generics bugs, than
> the dynamic side. Implementation wise you move from the runtime to the
> compiler, but the complexity is imho higher in the compiler, because the
> abstractio
On 22.06.2016 09:59, Thibault Kruse wrote:
I don't think the dynamic nature of Groovy is in general regarded as
the weakest point of Groovy right now. However, I believe a fully
static Groovy may still be preferrable than the dynamic Groovy, mostly
from the point of view of maintaining and exte
oosing a statically typed JVM
> language, yet can go into dynamic mode on demand.
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> From: Mario Garcia [mailto:mario.g...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:03 PM
> To: users@groovy.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileSta
On 06/21/2016 11:41 PM, Mr Andersson wrote:
On 06/21/2016 10:55 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
The problem with the ANT task is that I don't think I can set
classpath
argumetns to the actual so passing the config location is a problem
that
needs be resolved. Not that easy with maven.
oovy
>
> Is not needed here.
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> *From:* Cédric Champeau [mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an en
On 06/21/2016 10:55 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
The problem with the ANT task is that I don't think I can set classpath
argumetns to the actual so passing the config location is a problem that
needs be resolved. Not that easy with maven.
I am actually not quite sure what you mean with
[mailto:mario.g...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:03 PM
To: users@groovy.apache.org<mailto:users@groovy.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
If I'm not wrong, projects like Spock doesn't like @CompileStatic so in case I
woul
[mailto:mario.g...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:03 PM
*To:* users@groovy.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire
project
If I'm not wrong, projects like Spock doesn't like @CompileStatic so
in case I would like to statically compi
[...]
The problem with the ANT task is that I don't think I can set classpath
argumetns to the actual so passing the config location is a problem that
needs be resolved. Not that easy with maven.
I am actually not quite sure what you mean with "I don't think I can set
classpath arguments to t
[mailto:mario.g...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:03 PM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
If I'm not wrong, projects like Spock doesn't like @CompileStatic so in case I
would like to statically compile my p
lso messy to set up config files for every maven module, although
>>> I am not sure. The code in that config file is also not dynamic.
>>>
>>> withConfig(configuration) { ast(groovy.transform.CompileStatic) } and a
>>> simple option -compileStatic that uses an in
edric.champ...@gmail.com
>> ]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
>> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire
>> project
>>
>>
>>
>> It's in the docs:
>> <http://do
>
> Is not needed here.
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> *From:* Cédric Champeau [mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic
bject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire
project
It's in the docs:
http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/documentation/#_static_compilation_by_default
2016-06-21 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson <mailto:mr.andersson@gmail.com>>:
Is it possible to e
c for an entire
project
It's in the docs:
http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/documentation/#_static_compilation_by_default
2016-06-21 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson <mailto:mr.andersson@gmail.com>>:
Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project?
O
) within
the method.
Jason
From: Charles G [mailto:charl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:39 AM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
If we do it the doc way:
http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/documentation
ason
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Cédric Champeau [mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
> > To: users@groovy.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
> >
> >
> &
u [mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
> To: users@groovy.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
>
>
>
> It's in the docs:
> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/documentation/#_
@CompileStatic.
Jason
From: Cédric Champeau [mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
It's in the docs:
http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/document
On 21/06/2016 13:29, Cédric Champeau wrote:
It's in the docs:
http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/documentation/#_static_compilation_by_default
I am wondering how (or if) IntelliJ would recognise that?
--
Schalk W. Cronjé
Twitter / Ello / Toeter : @ysb33r
It's in the docs:
http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/documentation/#_static_compilation_by_default
2016-06-21 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson :
> Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project?
>
> Or do you have to do it on a per class basis?
>
> I like Gro
Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project?
Or do you have to do it on a per class basis?
I like Groovy for some of it's features, and mostly for it's close to
Java syntax but I would really like it to be a static language.
I've heard about Groovy++ but I
55 matches
Mail list logo
