Was there a missing "not"? I mean there are surely Java programs than can be run in Groovy wihtout change, but there are also Ruby programs that can be run in Groovy without change. If you insist on typing then you maybe better use nice or scala. The core of Groovy is dynamic and with that it differs in essential parts to Java. Just because there is a much syntax in common doesn't mean that Groovy is Java
first about the criticism: you really shouldn't use a page that covers Groovy from 1 year ago. I dion't know about Beanshell, but Groovy changed much in this time.
about the size: that's true, this is work that needs to be done. But is Beanshell able to implement interfaces, subclass normal and abstract classes and give them back to Java as normal classes with methods that can be called in the Java way? I don't think so. I just want to say, that the big size comes through used libraries, if you remove them, then Groovy isn't that big at all.
about Closures: How do you think this should ever work in Java? I mean where is the type information? A small detail? No, it bloats the syntax very much. Java would drive better if there is a way todefine inner anonymous classes in a shorter way. This won't get you closures, but it would get you as near to cosures as possible in Java without destroying the elegance of a closure completely.
Think about it: Groovy Closures are nice because they don't care much about static typing!
Slashdot Mirror
Was there a missing "not"? I mean there are surely Java programs than can be run in Groovy wihtout change, but there are also Ruby programs that can be run in Groovy without change. If you insist on typing then you maybe better use nice or scala. The core of Groovy is dynamic and with that it differs in essential parts to Java. Just because there is a much syntax in common doesn't mean that Groovy is Java
first about the criticism: you really shouldn't use a page that covers Groovy from 1 year ago. I dion't know about Beanshell, but Groovy changed much in this time. about the size: that's true, this is work that needs to be done. But is Beanshell able to implement interfaces, subclass normal and abstract classes and give them back to Java as normal classes with methods that can be called in the Java way? I don't think so. I just want to say, that the big size comes through used libraries, if you remove them, then Groovy isn't that big at all. about Closures: How do you think this should ever work in Java? I mean where is the type information? A small detail? No, it bloats the syntax very much. Java would drive better if there is a way todefine inner anonymous classes in a shorter way. This won't get you closures, but it would get you as near to cosures as possible in Java without destroying the elegance of a closure completely. Think about it: Groovy Closures are nice because they don't care much about static typing!