On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 23:17 +0200, MG wrote:
> Thank you Jochen and Cédric for explaining you rationale. It is funny, 
> because I always thought keeping Groovy as close to Java as possible was 
> a given. Evidently it is not...
> 
[…]

I 2003/2004 having a dynamic version of Java was great stuff. Also it allowed
for less verbosity. Time has moved on as has Java (finally). And there is now
Kotlin. Is the role of Groovy today to be the dynamic Java trying hard to have
statically type bits, or is it to be its own language with its own
evolutionary path?

-- 
Russel.
==========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to