Bloated, is the word I was looking for...
Den 2018-06-13 19:46, skrev h...@abula.org:
I did come from Java myself, and I understand the argument to ease the
transition from Java to Groovy, but as Java adopts language features
from Groovy, I worry that supporting both syntaxes will create a more
complex language with more options, more stuff to learn, and less
clarity.
Besides, in my experience developers are quite able to handle
different languages. Granted, Groovy should be easy to read and
understand for developers coming from Java (and other) languages, but
not every language feature in other languages need to be valid Groovy
code as well.
H2
Den 2018-06-13 17:24, skrev MG:
On 6/13/2018 10:24 AM, h...@abula.org wrote:
(I may be alone on this one, but I'd even suggest to consider some of
the Java syntax compatibility, if this helps speed up Groovy 3. If I
need to write Java code, I can always put it in .java files.)
Java-syntax-compatibility-only-support in Groovy is not there to be
used by Groovy developers (see previous discussions about warning when
using these constructs), but to support copy & paste compatibility for
people considering switching from Java.
I understand where you are coming from, but imho the closesness to
Java always has been another strong argument for Groovy, and
considering supporting Java syntax constructs in Groovy 3.0 through
the Parrot parser seems pretty straightforward I think we should keep
doing this.
An alternative would be to support a tool which auto-converts from
Java to Groovy (I would estimate this would be more effort, and it
does not really give the "copy & paste Java code and it is Groovy"
experience). Or IntelliJ/Eclipse/Netbeans could support this as part
of their respective code refactoring support...
Cheers,
mg
Den 2018-06-13 10:08, skrev Mario Garcia:
I would say 3 as well
2018-06-13 10:04 GMT+02:00 Robert Oschwald
<robertoschw...@gmail.com>:
Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects
are still on Grails 2.
Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius
<soe...@glasius.dk>:
While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I
think that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge
projects on to a higher version of Grails as well).
/Søren
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <william.w.man...@wellsfargo.com>
wrote:
I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.
Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
(including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
Best Regards
FROM: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com]
SENT: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
TO: users@groovy.apache.org
SUBJECT: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
Groovy 3.0
I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
(including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
Cheers,
p
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson
<david.daw...@simplicityitself.com> wrote:
I would vote 2.
Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
FROM: pa...@asert.com.au
SENT: 13 June 2018 08:06
TO: users@groovy.apache.org
REPLY TO: users@groovy.apache.org
SUBJECT: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
Groovy 3.0
Hi everyone,
There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery
of Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what
we want to include and have yet to complete in 3.0 but I won't
discuss that right now.
One of the other discussion points was Groovy around 2.6. As many
of
you know, we have released alpha versions of Groovy 2.6. That
version is a backport of most but not all of Groovy 3.0 to JDK7
including the Parrot parser (though it isn't enabled by default).
The purpose of this version has always been to assist
people/projects wanting to use the Parrot parser but who might be
stuck on JDK7. So in some sense it is an intermediate version to
assist with porting towards Groovy 3.0. While that is still a noble
goal in theory, in practice, many of our users are already on JDK8
and we have limited resources to work on many potential areas.
With that in mind, we'd like to understand the preferences in our
user base for the following two options:
Option 1: please continue releasing the best possible 2.6 even if
that slows down the final release of Groovy 3.0 and delays further
work on better support for JDK9+.
Option 2: please release one more alpha of 2.6 over the next month
or so which will become the best version to use to assist porting
for users stuck on JDK7 and then focus on 3.0. The 2.6 branch will
essentially be retired though we will consider PRs from the
community for critical fixes.
Feedback welcome.
Cheers, Paul.
-- Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
Søren Berg Glasius
Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
--- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
