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 26/06/2016 09:38, Russel Winder wrote:
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.
--
Schalk W. Cronjé
Twitter / Ello / Toeter : @ysb33r
