Yes, true OO nature of Ruby is nice - everything is an object - operators, classes, class and instance methods. I'd be interested to see how Groovy compares in this area. For example, how easy is it to open up an existing third party class and add/override class methods. Having done this in both Java and Ruby, there is no comparison. Ruby == a few lines of code and a require statement. Java == use Aspect-Oriented Programming, custom AOP classloader/compiler, etc. Groovy == ???
On 11/10/06, Art Gramlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I actually prefer Ruby the language and I think it handles things like meta-objects in a much better way. It just seems that Groovy is closer than Java making it an easier sell and less training. On Nov 10, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Chad Woolley wrote: > I'm not sure that Groovy is a better java integration choice. > Assuming that both can be made to work equally well when compiling to > bytecode and working with native java 3rd party libs, why not choose a > fairly mature language that has widespread and growing popularity , > rather than something relatively obscure and not as mature? > > -- Chad > > On 11/10/06, Art Gramlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Actually, I'd say sun is endoring jruby more since they have hired >> the two main developers to work on it. >> Kinda funny since Groovy seems like a better java integration >> choice. Now if they would just fix the major bugs and get a 1.0 out. >> >> On Nov 9, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Warner Onstine wrote: >> >> > >> > On Nov 9, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Chad Woolley wrote: >> > >> >> Why groovy vs. Jruby, other than the fact that Sun is endorsing >> >> Groovy? We all know that Sun only endorses usable and technically >> >> viable solutions (like J2EE). >> > >> > Not necessarily groovy vs. anything, I want to learn alot of >> > different techs and I have a specific project in mind for >> groovy ;-). >> > >> > -warner >> > >> >> >> >> OpenLazlo looks pretty cool, especially if it compiles to DHTML. >> >> Haven't used it myself. >> >> >> >> -- Chad >> >> >> >> On 11/9/06, Warner Onstine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I would very much like to, but that project hasn't bubbled up >> to the >> >>> top yet, next on my list is groovy ;-). >> >>> >> >>> -warner >> >>> >> >>> On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Randolph Kahle wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > Is anyone using or thinking about using open laslo? >> >>> > >> >>> > -- Randy >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> - >> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> jug.org >> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> jug.org >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> - >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> jug.org >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> jug.org >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
