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 traction in the static world. Even with the marketing push given by many people, including myself, Groovy has the label "dynamic" firmly stuck to it; it is seen in the same grouping as Clojure (and JRuby and Jython). When people are no discussing refactoring of codebases then if the base language is Java then the choice of language is Kotlin. > 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. > This sounds like lazy staff misusing a dynamic language. People using Groovy (and Clojure) as dynamic languages tend not to have this problem. -- 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
