Hi OC,
1. I would be totally onboard with having a switch to turn off all the
Groovy features that might have made sense in the early days when
thinking of it as a script language, but which in my eyes you do not
want/need when using it as a full blown programming language.
2. However:
1. Given my past experience with suggestion of (much smaller/more
harmless) changes by different people here, I highly doubt a
concensus on that could ever be reached.
2. But even before that: The added effort of
implementing/maintaining this is, as you said, most likely
prohibitive.
Cheers,
mg
On 06/02/2025 21:18, o...@ocs.cz wrote:
MG,
On 6. 2. 2025, at 21:05, MG <mg...@arscreat.com> wrote:
I was talking about an ideal world, as a starting point on how things
imho should behave (and why), as the point towards which one should
try to move as far as constraints such as backward compatibility allows.
In /ideal/ world there should be compiler
options/configurations/pragmas for all such debatable things, with a
well-known and easily accessible setups for backward compatibility in
case of breaking improvements, allowing each programmer to personally
decide which (and for which particular /sub-/project) to embrace and
which not.
Of course it would be sort of lots of extra work for the guys who do
the hard work on the compiler; and probably it would make it slower,
too. TANSTAAFL.
Thanks and all the best,
OC
