From: Bertrand Delacretaz > Le Samedi, 21 f�v 2004, � 17:13 Europe/Zurich, Christopher Oliver a > �crit : > > > ...I did some informal tests and it appears to actually be > slower than > > interpreted Rhino (not sure exactly why, perhaps because Rhino > > bytecodes are higher level), but was significantly faster than > > BeanShell (which is a Java source code interpreter). > > Is it a lot slower, do you think it would make a significant > difference? > > > 2) It has an LGPL license. > > Means we might have to talk its author into changing the license, it > wouldn't be the first one ;-) > > Note also an interesting comment of Geert Bevin on Steven's > weblog at > http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/arch> ives/001745.html, he > says "I'll soon have added support for > continuations with Groovy in RIFE too" > > From what I've seen Groovy looks like a very nice and fairly > complete > scripting language, which also has an ASF-like license. > > So, if Groovy is really close to have continuations, we might want to > wait or help? > > The only mention of continuations that I found on the groovy mailing > lists is at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.groovy.devel/298
Since Cocoon supports continuations they seem to attract more and more interest in the web development world ;-) Anyway, for me only **Java** Flowscript would really make sense because this would safe the two (technical) arguments against JavaScript flow: Java is type safe and it is compiled. So you can catch (some) errors at compile time and not at run time. If there is support for Groovy, Pyhton, [or whatever] continuations, I personally don't care because it doesn't make a real difference (languages are a matter of taste ...) and I don't think we should spread our energy over different Flowscript interpreter implementations which have to be maintained. Only my 2 cents ... -- Reinhard
