I am a Scala guy but I am surprised nobody mentioned groovy++ in this thread:
http://groovy.dzone.com/articles/sneak-peak-groovy-what-it-why http://code.google.com/p/groovypptest/ On Sep 15, 10:36 am, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course there's also the another issue... > > If you just need a little dynamic scripting in a larger picture, you can > do this with minimal work and no extra libraries in Java 6 if you use > JavaScript -- and re-use existing developer skills while you're at it. > The same can't be said for Ruby. > > On 9/15/2010 9:34 AM, Jess Holle wrote: > > > > > Existence outside the JVM is one possible dimension to the reluctance > > to use Ruby. For me the bigger issues with Ruby are: > > > 1. The inability to do static typing > > * An ability to easily do dynamic typing where you want is > > one thing, the inability to do static typing is quite > > another, though. > > 2. The overt "everything's a DSL" approach that Ruby seems to > > encourage or at least that many folk seem to take with Ruby > > * This is reminiscent of Dick's comments on LISP. Code > > written by dozens of different folk seems to quite easily > > end up looking more like dozens of totally different > > languages. > > > I don't have anything against Ruby as compared to other languages with > > these same issues -- but I consider both of these to be big issues. > > > -- > > Jess Holle > > > On 9/15/2010 8:30 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > >> You may be right. Probably the biggest challenge of JRuby (even bigger > >> than getting full POSIX filesystem support, native libraries/ > >> extensions, libc-like buffered/unubuffered IO, and a whole slew of > >> other features) has been knocking down the "us vs them" barrier > >> between the two worlds. Among Rubyists, JRuby is still often seen as > >> "that Java thing", and they seem to have taken a solemn oath to never > >> touch anything Java-related. On the Java side, folks are reluctant to > >> stray too far from Java-like languages, and see Ruby as a cocky young > >> upstart getting too much press for too little power. > > >> Of course neither attitude is healthy; Ruby and Rails are without a > >> doubt outstanding tools for building web applications, and on JRuby > >> most of the typical complaints about the Ruby platform are addressed > >> (performance, scaling, memory management, stability). And of course > >> the Ruby world can usually get those benefits just by switching to > >> JRuby, though their biases against "Java" often keep them from even > >> trying. > > >> You can imagine it's a frustrating situation for us :) > > >> On Sep 12, 7:15 pm, Andrew<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hi Charlie, > > >>> Personally (and I may be wrong...) I think there is a bit of a > >>> reluctance in the Java community to embrace anything that also has an > >>> existence outside of the JVM. I think there is a bit of an "Us (Java) > >>> versus them (Ruby)" mentality, sadly. > > >>> Also, there's a thread here from 2009 that touched on some of the > >>> attitudes towards (J)Ruby - not sure if you've seen it. > > >>>http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05371.html > > >>> Andrew. > > >>> Twitter: @am2605 > > >>> On Sep 12, 4:19 pm, Charles Oliver Nutter<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> On Sep 9, 11:17 pm, Sean Griffin<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> My intention is not as sensational as my subject, but it's succinct so > >>>>> I'll go with it. > >>>> FWIW, I'm surprised JRuby doesn't come up more. Perhaps people don't > >>>> think about it because they feel Ruby is a "non-JVM" language more > >>>> than a JVM language? > >>>> Ruby the language (not necessarily on JRuby) likely has more users > >>>> worldwide than Groovy, Scala, and Clojure combined. By conservative > >>>> estimates there are 500k-1M folks using Ruby. There are dozens of Ruby > >>>> conferences around the world; I'll be attending 6 total this fall in > >>>> the US, Japan, Brazil, and Uruguay, and more this spring in Europe and > >>>> India. So it can't be that there's not a community to support it. > >>>> JRuby itself has defeated the idea that "Ruby is slow" already, and in > >>>> the next release Ruby performance for many things will start to > >>>> approach Java...even without requiring static types and other dynlang" > >>>> impurities. For small benchmarks, JRuby master has exceeded the > >>>> performance of all other dynamic languages on the JVM already. > >>>> JRuby integrates very well with Java, implementing interfaces (at > >>>> runtime or ahead-of-time), extending classes, and of course calling > >>>> any Java class as if it were just another Ruby class. The vast > >>>> majority of integration cases work just fine, and most folks that > >>>> choose JRuby do so explicitly because it integrates so well. > >>>> I suppose the big reason people may not consider Ruby is due to the > >>>> differing syntax and some oddities in the language? I don't find the > >>>> syntax that far off from Java...mostly it's replacing {} with > >>>> do...end, using @foo for instance variables, and omitting visibility > >>>> modifiers. So I think this is a red herring too. > >>>> I'd like to hear why nobody on this thread has even mentioned JRuby, > >>>> especially if it's something we've failed to do in the implementation > >>>> that keeps people away. > >>>> - Charlie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
