Jochen, > On 7. 4. 2025, at 14:00, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote: > I wonder though... why use Groovy to compile Java?
My own use case was that I've turned big Java projects to Groovy; the only reasonable way I've found was 1. to rename all .java sources to .groovy 2. to fix things which did not compile at all (in my case luckily pretty small number of those) 3. incrementally re-write those parts of code which either did not work properly [*] or just needed an upgrade to pure and nice Groovy, whilst other parts of the same sources [**] did remain (and a little part still remains as of today) ugly semicolon- and boilerplate-ridden Java. [*] Incidentally, by the “return <newline> value” trick I've been bitten myself, too :) Long ago I did argue Groovy should have warnings like ObjC does — and one of them should happen in these cases when the last line of such an ambiguous code ends by a superfluous semicolon (which strongly hints it's a Java code), but well, you don't like warnings and thus don't have them :) [**] Since alas Java does not allow splitting big classes to more sources (and with Groovy it was complicated before traits, and when traits much later came, I could not embrace them, for they clash with my ASTTs), some sources were and still are indecently long :( I can't see how those jokers in Sun could be stupid enough to design a language without (something functionally equivalent to) ObjC categories, especially given Sun did work with NeXT on OpenStep, so they _did_ know how a decent and useable OO language looks like :( All the best, OC
