On 06/21/2016 08:08 PM, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
I would say that if you use the config script, then it would mean
you’d want to use @CompileDynamic on every class where you don’t want
static. It’s a default. I would think once you start adding logic into
a compiler config script like that you’ll get into trouble with users
being confused.
I’m going to say something a little radical: if you want to use static
compilation all the time, you may want to consider Kotlin, which is
1.0 now and similar to Groovy but is static compiled all the time. No
offense to Jochen and other’s amazing work that I think brought new
life to Groovy (I’d probably not be using it all were it not for
CompileStatic), I’ve encountered a handful of compiler bugs
unfortunately and still do from time to time, enough that I’ve learned
how to read Java bytecode. I still like the language features of
Groovy better and I haven’t found any solution other than dynamic
Groovy to reasonably process web services/documents though, so I still
like Groovy better until it’s possible to combine Kotlin+Groovy or
Kotlin adds dynamic features. If you do use Groovy static compile then
make sure definitely to go with the latest 2.4.7.
Exactly my point. I do not want to switch to Kotlin or Scala because you
would have to learn a new language. Groovy's power is that it is so
similar to Java "yet as powerful".
If groovy were to make a compilestatic jar file, then it will be more
attractive to many requiring and liking a statically typed language.
This is the weakest point of groovy right now, and it would win the last
argument and become a choice for those choosing a statically typed JVM
language, yet can go into dynamic mode on demand.
Jason
*From:*Mario Garcia [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:03 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*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 project, at least I
should be telling the compiler not to compile statically my
specifications. Something like:
withConfig(configuration) {
source(unitValidator: { unit -> !unit.AST.classes.any {
it.name.endsWith('Spec') } }) {
ast(CompileStatic)
}
}
my two cents
Mario
2016-06-21 18:44 GMT+02:00 Cédric Champeau <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
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 `groovy-all.jar`, not their
invokedynamic version. Adding a new dimension, which is orthogonal
to invokedynamic makes it even more complicated. Don't forget that
the Groovy compiler is also mixed in its runtime (which is a
problem of its own). We should solve that first.
Second, IDEs need to know whether a file is statically compiled or
not. The `@CompileStatic` annotation makes it very clear, and the
default is the standard dynamic mode that has been in Groovy for
more than 10 years. IDEs know about it, and it's simple to infer.
Any alternative solution, like the config script, or an alternate
compiler (!) makes it impossible for the IDE to guess. The only
IDE-pragmatic solution is to have a distinct file extension for
statically compiled Groovy files (say, .sgroovy instead of
.groovy). So far this has been ruled out, but I think it's the
most pragmatic, and IDE friendly, solution.
2016-06-21 18:37 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
On 06/21/2016 02:38 PM, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
Tying Cédric’s advice to your previous question about
gmavenplus and joint compilation, per
https://github.com/groovy/GMavenPlus/wiki/Examples#configuration-script
you add the configuration tag with a reference to your
groovy script.
I also mentioned that I could not get Gmavenplus to work, but
maybe i did something wrong. But I literally copied and pasted
that section.
Actually about 90+% of our code base in Groovy is
CompileStatic I wonder if we should use that. Cédric, if
we use the config script method, is it still possible to
use the “skip” annotation to switch back to dynamic mode?
Even if it worked, I highly doubt IntelliJ IDEA would know
about it and think all files are dynamic typing so
probably it’s still best for us to add @CompileStatic
everywhere, but sometimes we forget where we wanted it.
The performance difference is extreme when we forget it,
on a certain class we missed recently it took our page
rendering times from about 4ms to 52ms, so for us it’s an
actual “bug” to forget to add @CompileStatic.
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.
*Groovy should instead provide a default
GroovyStatic-2.4.4.jar* file that enables this by default.
That way everybody wins, and Groovy could join the club of
static languages and not get rejected by those that needs to
get Groovy.
It is also 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 internal
version of that file is preferable and *SIMPLER*.
groovyc -configscript src/conf/config.groovy
src/main/groovy/MyClass.groovy
Is not needed here.
Jason
*From:*Cédric Champeau [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*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/#_static_compilation_by_default
2016-06-21 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
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 believe that's dead by
now, no?
Question is wether you can tell the Groovy compiler
with a flag to treat all Groovy classes on certain
paths as static?
Preferable doable from ANT too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message and any attachments are for the sole
use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message
and any attachments.
