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 maintaining and extending Groovy in the > future, without financial sponsoring.
I believe that Kotlin has now beaten @CompileStatic everywhere Groovy, the Gradle decision to make Kotlin the default script specification language in Gradle 3 is one of the indicators (but not the only one). Groovy needs to reinforce it's dynamic language with spot static compilation credentials if it is to survive as a programming language with traction. > I would also be wary of shipping more variants of Groovy, the > question > to me is whether Groovy should just drop runtime dynamics. It would > kind of stop being Groovy, but it might still be great. > Maybe it is time to ditch the non-indy artefact and ship only the indy artefact. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
