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 quirkier, slower, less supported Java with some nice syntactic sugar. It just wasn't designed for that.
On 22 June 2016 at 14:50, Thibault Kruse <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > For that purpose, it might be sufficient to make @TypeChecked the > default, or a compiler option. > That would catch most such problems at compile time. >
