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