groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mr Andersson <>
Subject Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
Date Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:33:06 GMT

On 06/21/2016 11:34 PM, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
> I can say as someone who writes Groovy on a daily basis for about a 
> year now on a project that uses CompileStatic by default on a team of 
> 6-10 that we haven’t had many problems forgetting @CompileStatic or 
> been too annoyed with it. Although as I’ve said in earlier post, we 
> have forgotten once or twice and that did have a substantial impact. 
> In your IDE you can even create a file template for Groovy class to 
> add @CompileStatic for you. It’s not bad and IDE support follows. 
> Therefore, I would say current Groovy support is good enough for those 
> looking for a static language. For us using something like compiler 
> configuration would just confuse things, especially since it is likely 
> invisible to IDE.

Ok, 6-10 people. But in companies such as Volvo, Mercedes, Boeing, 
Walmart, UPS, FedEX, DHL they have a department that specifically 
chooses what they can and cannot use, because those tools once allowed, 
will be totally out of their control.

Some projects could then live in silence for years and you have no way 
of knowing what they are using and not using.

Handing a potentially lethal weapon to so many devs, many of whom only 
have basic programming skills, then you will end up having a serious 
problem eventually. Especially when that code gets handed over to 
someone else, then someone else and it keeps piling up.

Groovy's problem has always been it's lack of adoption in the 
enterprise. Nobody would code Java to begin if it wasn't so big in the 
enterprise world. There are other languages to choose from. Now imagine 
a replacement. Once I started in one of these companies, I had to code 
in Java.

I pushed really hard for Groovy and Grails and it actually were adopted 
to be used for smaller applications, but not many ended up going that 
route and today I don't think that was a good recommendation.

Now I code as a consultant and I demand a static language personally, 
because I value that my code will continue to work and be refactorable, 
extensiable 10 years from now, even when I forget how to even setup the 
project. My personal experience is that groovy code is too fragile, like 
Javascript. It has to much global access and there is no control over 
anything. Anyone can override things. Even Javascript is moving to 
static, and we have TypeScript and other languages popping up getting 

The dynamic features are also so nice to use that it is hard to resist 
using them. I know this when I've even tried.

If we can be lazy we will be. Especially when we are tired.

I double rest my case now :P

> Jason
> *From:*Mr Andersson []
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:31 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire 
> project
> On 06/21/2016 08:08 PM, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
>     I would say that if you use the config script, then it would mean
>     you’d want to use @CompileDynamic on every class where you don’t
>     want static. It’s a default. I would think once you start adding
>     logic into a compiler config script like that you’ll get into
>     trouble with users being confused.
>     I’m going to say something a little radical: if you want to use
>     static compilation all the time, you may want to consider Kotlin,
>     which is 1.0 now and similar to Groovy but is static compiled all
>     the time. No offense to Jochen and other’s amazing work that I
>     think brought new life to Groovy (I’d probably not be using it all
>     were it not for CompileStatic), I’ve encountered a handful of
>     compiler bugs unfortunately and still do from time to time, enough
>     that I’ve learned how to read Java bytecode. I still like the
>     language features of Groovy better and I haven’t found any
>     solution other than dynamic Groovy to reasonably process web
>     services/documents though, so I still like Groovy better until
>     it’s possible to combine Kotlin+Groovy or Kotlin adds dynamic
>     features. If you do use Groovy static compile then make sure
>     definitely to go with the latest 2.4.7.
> Exactly my point. I do not want to switch to Kotlin or Scala because 
> you would have to learn a new language. Groovy's power is that it is 
> so similar to Java "yet as powerful".
> If groovy were to make a compilestatic jar file, then it will be more 
> attractive to many requiring and liking a statically typed language.
> This is the weakest point of groovy right now, and it would win the 
> last argument and become a choice for those choosing a statically 
> typed JVM language, yet can go into dynamic mode on demand.
>     Jason
>     *From:*Mario Garcia []
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:03 PM
>     *To:* <>
>     *Subject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an
>     entire project
>     If I'm not wrong, projects like Spock doesn't like @CompileStatic
>     so in case I would like to statically compile my project, at least
>     I should be telling the compiler not to compile statically my
>     specifications. Something like:
>     withConfig(configuration) {
>         source(unitValidator: { unit -> !unit.AST.classes.any {
>'Spec') } }) {
>             ast(CompileStatic)
>         }
>     }
>     my two cents
>     Mario
>     2016-06-21 18:44 GMT+02:00 Cédric Champeau
>     < <>>:
>         A strong -1 for both options. We already have 2 variants of
>         Groovy today, indy and non indy, and in practice *nobody uses
>         the invokedynamic version* because it's impractical to use.
>         Typically projects depend on `groovy.jar` or `groovy-all.jar`,
>         not their invokedynamic version. Adding a new dimension, which
>         is orthogonal to invokedynamic makes it even more complicated.
>         Don't forget that the Groovy compiler is also mixed in its
>         runtime (which is a problem of its own). We should solve that
>         first.
>         Second, IDEs need to know whether a file is statically
>         compiled or not. The `@CompileStatic` annotation makes it very
>         clear, and the default is the standard dynamic mode that has
>         been in Groovy for more than 10 years. IDEs know about it, and
>         it's simple to infer. Any alternative solution, like the
>         config script, or an alternate compiler (!) makes it
>         impossible for the IDE to guess. The only IDE-pragmatic
>         solution is to have a distinct file extension for statically
>         compiled Groovy files (say, .sgroovy instead of .groovy). So
>         far this has been ruled out, but I think it's the most
>         pragmatic, and IDE friendly, solution.
>         2016-06-21 18:37 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson
>         < <>>:
>             On 06/21/2016 02:38 PM, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
>                 Tying Cédric’s advice to your previous question about
>                 gmavenplus and joint compilation, per
>                 you add the configuration tag with a reference to your
>                 groovy script.
>             I also mentioned that I could not get Gmavenplus to work,
>             but maybe i did something wrong. But I literally copied
>             and pasted that section.
>                 Actually about 90+% of our code base in Groovy is
>                 CompileStatic I wonder if we should use that. Cédric,
>                 if we use the config script method, is it still
>                 possible to use the “skip” annotation to switch back
>                 to dynamic mode? Even if it worked, I highly doubt
>                 IntelliJ IDEA would know about it and think all files
>                 are dynamic typing so probably it’s still best for us
>                 to add @CompileStatic everywhere, but sometimes we
>                 forget where we wanted it. The performance difference
>                 is extreme when we forget it, on a certain class we
>                 missed recently it took our page rendering times from
>                 about 4ms to 52ms, so for us it’s an actual “bug” to
>                 forget to add @CompileStatic.
>             The problem with  the ANT task is that I don't think I can
>             set classpath argumetns to the actual so passing the
>             config location is a problem that needs be resolved. Not
>             that easy with maven.
>             *Groovy should instead provide a default
>             GroovyStatic-2.4.4.jar* file that enables this by default.
>             That way everybody wins, and Groovy could join the club of
>             static languages and not get rejected by those that needs
>             to get Groovy.
>             It is also messy to set up config files for every maven
>             module, although I am not sure. The code in that config
>             file is also not dynamic.
>             withConfig(configuration){ast(groovy.transform.CompileStatic)}
>             and a simple option -compileStatic that uses an internal
>             version of that file is preferable and *SIMPLER*.
>             groovyc -configscript src/conf/config.groovy
>             src/main/groovy/MyClass.groovy
>             Is not needed here.
>                 Jason
>                 *From:*Cédric Champeau []
>                 *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM
>                 *To:*
>                 <>
>                 *Subject:* Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic
>                 for an entire project
>                 It's in the docs:
>                 2016-06-21 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson
>                 <
>                 <>>:
>                     Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an
>                     entire project?
>                     Or do you have to do it on a per class basis?
>                     I like Groovy for some of it's features, and
>                     mostly for it's close to Java syntax but I would
>                     really like it to be a static language.
>                     I've heard about Groovy++ but I believe that's
>                     dead by now, no?
>                     Question is wether you can tell the Groovy
>                     compiler with a flag to treat all Groovy classes
>                     on certain paths as static?
>                     Preferable doable from ANT too.
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 This email message and any attachments are for the
>                 sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
>                 unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
>                 is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
>                 please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
>                 all copies of the original message and any attachments.

View raw message