On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 06:34 -0300, Ricky Clarkson wrote: > Sure, I generally do stick with static languages. Groovy was promoted as a > step up from Java, though, which until that line of code is rejected, it > clearly isn't. A step sideways, perhaps.
Early (i.e. late 2003, early 2004) Groovy marketing was dire, overhyped just doesn't do it justice. Until Groovy 2, Groovy was a dynamic language and so different from Java, Scala, etc. I agree "step up" was just the wrong marketing angle. > Isn't Groovy adding static typing now? Will that line be rejected > thereafter? Yes. If you use the static typing annotations. Groovy is now entering a "schizophrenic" period, it is principally a dynamically typed, dynamically bound language, but is now entering into the statically typed, statically bound arena. I can now write all my computational intensive microbenchmarks in pure Groovy and get close to Java level performance. Annotating Groovy is so much easier than rewriting the computationally intensive bits in Java. > Java's lack of type inference.. sure. Does Groovy infer types? Not really, in the Scala sense, but the SpringSource/VMWare workers are doing a lot on all this, so in the future the answer may be very much so – it is the right thing to be doing. -- 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
