On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 13:25 -0600, phil swenson wrote: [ . . . ] > *BUT* I don't think it's java.next. If groovy had decided to do > static typing way back when I think it would already be java.next (w/ > optional dynamic typing). But they didn't so it's simply too slow... > and a dynamically typed language will never have the quality of IDE > tooling that Java enjoys. Just isn't doable.
Why should Groovy even try to market itself as java.next? The whole point of Groovy is to provide a dynamic symbiote to Java (or any other language on the JVM that creates class files, Scala, Clojure, Groovy++, Fantom, etc.) Groovy cannot do static typing because it has a full runtime meta-object protocol, any type checking there is has to happen at runtime. It will always therefore execute relatively slowly compared to fully compiled languages. I don't consider this a blot or black mark, it is a feature. Groovy++ is interesting as it bridges the divide providing static typing and compilation leading to speed. But some capabilities are lost -- whilst others are gained. That is the whole point, there is no single winner in the static vs dynamic warfare, each approach has properties and capabilities. These apply more in certain cases leading to decisions about which language to use in which parts of which systems. I have to admit whenever I see threads trying to argue "dynamic is better than static" or "static is better than dynamic" as an abstract absolute, I stop reading and delete. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
