On 8 May 2011 01:19, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 is marketing itself as no such thing. On a second reading, I don't even believe that the article is really making this claim; it's just an unfortunate choice of title.
Just to remind everyone of the opening paragraph: I’ll be discussing modern alternatives to the Java programming language for use with the Java Platform. *This is the first installment of the series* - “The Groovy Programming Language”. I think it's only fair to wait on the remainder of the series, and see how it all pans out. > 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 > -- Kevin Wright gtalk / msn : [email protected] <[email protected]>mail: [email protected] vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright twitter: @thecoda "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- 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.
