Richard Hightower wrote:
Actually I don't hate it at all. I actually quite like the concept of a language that allows for scripting that is not JavaScript but is more Java-like.I agree. Like it or not.... Groovy looks like it will be a factor. (Poor Drew hates it with a passion.)
I am vexed by the following:
1) James S. and crew trying to make a JSR (i.e. part of the Java platform) out of a language that is just been born without having been proven in any significant way.
2) I read the code for the Groovy parser. It's a hand-written parser. I would be willing to hand-write a parser for algebraic expressions, not a language of any size. There are significant gaps that have been discovered (http://jroller.com/page/pyrasun/20040323).
3) Go and get the distribution (http://dist.codehaus.org/groovy/distributions/groovy-1.0-beta-7.zip). Open it in WinZip and sort by size. Be amazed that they distribute the "checkstyle" report (11.5MB uncompressed) as well no fewer than 3 copies of the groovy binary at 700K a pop (3 is better than 1 I guess), plus they include ant 1.6.1 (almost 1MB uncompressed). I don't care about the download time or the size of the files, mind you. I've got the big disk and fast connection. My point here is on hygiene; can't they distribute the "core" language and compiler for people who just want to embed this thing somewhere without having to wade through all the crap like the Groovy controller code for your web-enabled toaster? People who check in development artifacts like the checkstyle report are not being considerate or careful. What else have they overlooked?
Now I'm starting to sound like I hate it so I'll stop.
This is good and bad. Purists can be necessary when you want to ensure that you have a consistency of language concepts.[Jython gushing deleted]
What I like about Groovy is that the the syntax is not controlled by language purists. They can add extentions for things that we use all of the time like XML DOM, XSLT and SQL. I view this as an advantage, but it makes a messy language.
Purists get in the way when you want to make sure that you use every key combination on the keyboard in your language (see OGNL's collection operations for an example of this).
Hani doesn't even know when he's serious half the time, I suspect. Loosely typed languages have their place, as you suggest. When the domain you apply them to gives you this much leverage then go to it. My example of this is using gawk to write quick filters and the like. The programs are perfectly readable & maintainable (for the most part :-), because they are written as close to the domain of the problem as possible. Read the two Programming Pearls books for much better thoughts on this than I am presenting here.I can see why this could be considered bad (Perl). But I would considering using something that made life easier (I am lazy, and I am proud of it). I want tools to be as easy to use as possible whilst not boxing myself in.
Hani says anyone that uses a loosely typed language is limp wristed, whatever that means. Ahem..... I still like Jython. I've written things in Jython that took twice as much code (or more) when I wrote it in Java. Jython (Python really) is fairly readable. Of course you could write Python that no one could read (I've done it... Guilty as charged... Ask nick he has seen some of my jython code.... Poor guy.).
- Drew
-- +---------------------------------+ < Drew Davidson | OGNL Technology > +---------------------------------+ | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / | Web: http://www.ognl.org / | Vox: (520) 531-1966 < | Fax: (520) 531-1965 \ | Mobile: (520) 405-2967 \ +---------------------------------+
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
