blackdrag suggested to move this
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8329
discussion from Jira to this list, so I am replying here:
I agree with Endre Stølsvik: I think Groovy should strengthen its
language support for statically compiled use, and I agree it should move
towards making statically using it as hassle free as possible.
I think Endre has already made some good points why this would be a good
idea, so I am just going to add that I am convinced that Groovy would
not be at 3% of the languages used after Java, but at > 30% (basically
everyone that could freely pick a language for commercial projects
besides Java would be using it) if it would fully be the Java++ it in
fact is - in my perception what kept it back was the fact that it "is
slow" (true > 10 years back), that it is just "a script language" (never
true afaik) - and that it "is a dynamic language" (no longer true,
but...). When I picked Groovy for the project I work on, I did so
despite it was dynamic, not because of that (the static Groovy compiler
that someone in Russia had built at the time helped in the decision...).
Being able to be dynamic in a language is a powerful feature, but one
that is needed only in special cases. Otherwise Groovy would already
rule the Java world ;-)
Being able to have a very simple configscript that qualifies every class
with @CompileStatic is great
(http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/documentation/#_static_compilation_by_default),
but it is not simple/easy enough: I agree there should be a "one click"
option to turn all of Groovy to using static compilation by default.
Some ways to achieve this:
# Make a "static Groovy" download available (might just be based on
"including" the @CompileStatic configscript above)
# Compiler switch
# Choose during installation
# Express through the Groovy source file extension:
## *.groovy ... use configured default
## *.groovyd ... dynamic
## *.groovys ... static
(alternatives: *.groovys, *.sgrv, *.grvs)
The last option has the advantage, that everybody can use it easily
everwhere (Shell, IDE, ...), but the disadvantage that all the Groovy
examples out there use *.groovy, which would again might give the
impression to people that Groovy is "mostly a dynamic language". Maybe a
combination of people picking the default mode (dynamic/static) at
download/install time, with the extension approach would work best.
(That the Groovy compiler will try to compile any file with any
extension is OK. In that case I would suggest the fallback if the
extension is not known is dynamic compilation, for backward
compatibility reasons. Configuring extensions to mean dynamic or static
compilation would of course also be an option).
Or the Groovy compiler could throw if no --static or --dynamic compiler
switch was given ? That would force everyone to make a deliberate
decision... ;-)
Just a quick brainstorming mail, to hopefully get the discussion going,
Markus
