Aw: Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-04-03 Thread Jochen Theodorou
[...]  > I disagree a bit. It's not only about code completion, but also about jumping > to the definitions (and the documentation). true, though.. I must say I found the gradle documentation for tasks quite lacking... maybe looking at the code would give better insights, so jumping might be

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-04-02 Thread Thibault Kruse
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019, 01:56 Jochen Theodorou wrote: > Hi, > > I have never used it, but what you write is within my expectations. We > should not forget we are *still* (after years) talking about an early > version of the DSL. > > My experience with other people doing gradle is more like this: >

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-04-02 Thread Jochen Theodorou
Hi, I have never used it, but what you write is within my expectations. We should not forget we are *still* (after years) talking about an early version of the DSL. My experience with other people doing gradle is more like this: There is a problem, we search on stackoverflow and copy+paste the

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-04-02 Thread Thibault Kruse
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:37 AM Thibault Kruse wrote: > > While that is obviously true, the question is not as simple. The > groovy community must make a recommendation to all gradle projects in > the world about whether to use Gradle-Groovy-DSL or Gradle-Kotlin-DSL. Answering myself, after

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-24 Thread MG
It was of course not directed against Cédric, I was just making a point for what I consider the best interests of Groovy. I have already replied to Thibault Kruse that it is evident Cédric has been pondering this move for years. I don't envy the position he evidently has been in for the last

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-23 Thread MG
On 22/03/2019 03:37, Thibault Kruse wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:03 AM MG wrote: Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that Jetbrains could have put their weight behind Groovy, especially its static part, gaining all the benefits with regards to tool support / Intellisense

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-22 Thread Jochen Theodorou
On 22.03.19 03:54, Thibault Kruse wrote: Also, BTW, not sure why Cedric did not post this on this mailing list, but he just announced in his blog: https://melix.github.io/blog/2019/03/goodbye-groovy.html "I’m stepping down from the Apache Groovy project Today is a very sad day. I’ve decided to

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-21 Thread Paul King
Hi Thibault, I think the Groovy community has always shown itself to be embracing of the entire JVM ecosystem and beyond. And for the most part has shown itself to be very respectful of other community members. I don't think anything has changed. The pace of progress has slowed a little and we

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-21 Thread Thibault Kruse
Also, BTW, not sure why Cedric did not post this on this mailing list, but he just announced in his blog: https://melix.github.io/blog/2019/03/goodbye-groovy.html "I’m stepping down from the Apache Groovy project Today is a very sad day. I’ve decided to resign from the Apache Groovy PMC, as well

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-21 Thread Thibault Kruse
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:03 AM MG wrote: > > Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that Jetbrains could have > put their weight behind Groovy, especially its static part, gaining all the > benefits with regards to tool support / Intellisense they now claim for Kotlin I believe in

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-21 Thread Milles, Eric (TR Tech, Content & Ops)
If there are known issues with the current build scripts, can they be enumerated so that a plan for fixing by community member(s) can be described? It seems if Cedric was not the only developer making changes to the build scripts, some of the pressure would be relieved.

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-21 Thread Paul King
There seems to be enough desire to keep the files as Groovy, so I'll revert for the time being. We can look at this issue again a bit further down the track and see if there is a greater level of comfort in switching. Cheers, Paul. On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:03 PM MG wrote: > Hi Cédric, > > I

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-20 Thread MG
Hi Cédric, I think that It should be obvious that there is a conflict of interests here, and that agreeing to you suggestion looks to be worse for Groovy than the very old saying by the original Groovy author about "never having done Groovy if he had known a certain other language existed"

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-20 Thread Cédric Champeau
Well I think I disagree with most of what you just said. And Gradle Inc will not deprecate the groovy support anytime soon. I'm well placed to know it's not even in discussion. The only thing that I see could lead to such a decision would be that groovy doesn't run on future versions of the JVM.

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-20 Thread Sergio del Amo Caballero
I don’t know what do you imply that I am trying to hide. I think: - Gradle Groovy DSL helps Groovy adoption and thus survival. same as Geb DSL on top of Selenium helps Groovy adoption and thus survival. I think if everyone moves to Kotlin DSL, Gradle Inc will lose interest in maintaining

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-20 Thread Cédric Champeau
And do you honestly think that trying to hide that by not using the Kotlin DSL would change anything? Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 21:45, Sergio Del Amo a écrit : > > I do in fact see this as at least a minor threat. If Groovy itself can't > even manage to use the Gradle Groovy DSL, what hope

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-20 Thread Sergio Del Amo
> I do in fact see this as at least a minor threat. If Groovy itself can't > even manage to use the Gradle Groovy DSL, what hope remains for the survival > of the Groovy DSL? Agree. I see a threat at least to Gradle Groovy DSL survival and probably to Groovy in general. One may reason: If

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-20 Thread Milles, Eric (TR Tech, Content & Ops)
I tried to get some info from Gradle on adding Eclipse DSLD for Gradle and they scoffed at me. They said it was a multi-person, multi-year effort so why even try. I was able to get some very basic support without that much effort. It could be moved forward and probably ported to IntelliJ as

Re: Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-20 Thread Paul King
I am probably -0 on the change at this time. I don't see this as a language threat issue but we are very keen to make the barrier to entry as low as possible for new contributors. Over time, I suspect more folks will have picked up some Kotlin exposure, so this wouldn't be as strong as a -1 from

Binary compatibility fixed + Kotlin DSL

2019-03-20 Thread Cédric Champeau
Hi folks, Some of you have noticed that I have fixed the binary compatibility reports on master. I also fixed checkstyle and CodeNarc, which were failing to execute. I did not, however, fixed the many errors we see when running those, nor the ones with spotbugs. It's a bit annoying because it