groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From h...@abula.org
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:46:33 GMT
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, h2gr@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 
>>> <robertoschwald@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
>>>> <soeren@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.Mangum@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.ditommaso@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.dawson@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: paulk@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.
>> 

Mime
View raw message