+1 Originally was going to vote 0, but had more time to devote to looking over the proposed PR/provisos and to consider the possible downsides.
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > I would like to see some more PMC votes for this proposal. > > On the one hand we don't like changes that aren't vetted enough, yet here > is a proposed change that: > * is fairly comprehensive (just lacking some doco which I have already > identified) > * closes some gaps in one of Groovy's design goals of making it easy to > bring Java code to Groovy > * has sought feedback from dev and user communities (and seems to have > strong support from our user base) > > And yet, I am the only one from the PMC who has voted. I don't really care > if the votes > are critical and provide a good reason but at least then it shows respect > for the time and > energy put in to preparing a considered proposal and requesting formal > feedback. > I know everyone is super busy but we just aren't a big enough PMC right > now for > everyone to sit on the fence for proposals like this. > > While I don't think we need to mirror everything in Java and I don't > personally think I will > use this feature often in my own code, I can certainly see how new users > to Groovy would > find it useful and so it seems like an overall win from my point of view. > Zero-learning curve > from Java is one of the attractions of Groovy when marketing the language. > This seems to > offer a bit of an improvement in that space with low investment and low > risk. > > If others can see serious flaws though, it would be good to provide the > feedback so Daniel > can make some progress. Or if someone can see better bang-for-buck changes > that we > should be making from a marketing of the language perspective, it would be > good to pass > those insights on so Daniel and other contributors can make best use of > their time. > > > Cheers, Paul. > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > >> I would keep discussions about warnings in a separate thread so as not to >> derail the main topic here. If they were already widely used, it would be >> fine to indicate that we should just add another one. But that isn't the >> case and we'd need many discussions to do the topic justice. >> >> Cheers, Paul. >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:04 PM, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 with all that Paul says. Plus, we should support emitting a "Java >>> compatibility / non-idiomatic-Groovy" warning here, to avoid people using >>> this "for Java compatibility / quick/easy copy & paste porting of Java >>> code"-only syntax when writing actual Groovy code (surprisingly not all >>> developers read the complete documentation of a language, before they start >>> using it, especially for something as base line as literal array syntax :-) >>> ). >>> >>> With regards to Jochen's critique of warnings in general: I absolutely >>> agree that too many / too picky warnings are bad. But obviously we cannot >>> use an error here instead, so if we want to keep this syntax in the corner >>> it belongs, warning about its use looks like the only option that would >>> consistently work in practice to me... >>> (same as potentially for Java lambda syntax, depending on whether one >>> will be able to use 100% equivalent & concise Groovy closure syntax here >>> instead). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> mg >>> >>> >>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- >>> Von: "Daniel.Sun" <sun...@apache.org> >>> Datum: 04.05.18 03:38 (GMT+01:00) >>> An: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org >>> Betreff: [VOTE] Support Java-like array >>> >>> Dear development community, >>> >>> In order to improve Groovy's compatibility with Java(Copy & Paste) >>> and >>> make Groovy more friendly to Java developers[1], I propose to support >>> Java-like array[2][3] and start the VOTE thread for supporting Java-like >>> array. >>> >>> Please vote on supporting Java-like array since Apache Groovy 3.0.0. >>> >>> Here are the poll results from twitter and user mailing list for >>> your >>> reference: >>> >>> Sum up the poll results >>> 24 votes in total(including my +1) >>> 15 +1 (62.5%) >>> 9 0 (37.5%) >>> 0 -1 ( 0.0%) >>> >>> Twitter[4] >>> 19 votes in total(not including my +1) >>> 58% +1, >>> 42% 0, >>> 0% -1 >>> >>> User mailing list( >>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Poll-About-supporting-Jav >>> a-like-array-tt5749923.html >>> ) >>> 4 votes in total(not including my +1) >>> 3 +1, >>> 1 0, >>> 0 -1 >>> >>> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at >>> least >>> three +1 PMC votes are cast. >>> >>> [ ] +1 Support Java-like array >>> [ ] 0 I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I assume it's ok >>> [ ] -1 Do not support Java-like array because... >>> >>> Here is my vote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel.Sun >>> [1] http://groovy-lang.org/differences.html >>> [2] https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/691 >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8561 >>> [4] https://twitter.com/daniel_sun/status/990544485196091395 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html >>> >> >> >
