groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russel Winder <>
Subject Re: GPars 2 Stuff
Date Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:04:12 GMT
On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 20:41 +0100, James NORTHROP wrote:
> Would second the motion to reduce redundancy where possible, as it
> reduces duplication of effort in testing, docs, etc. where, maybe, we
> can get GPars down to a core minimum of functionality, above and
> beyond what java provides; essentially as the (b)leading edge of
> concurrency.

I guess the question is how long to leave "voting" open before
declaring the motion passed nem con.

> We may reach a point where Java 1.9+ includes everything we could
> possibly provide in GPars 2.0+ thus making GPars redundant. Isn't
> that the best we could hope for ? To make the JVM realm the premier
> choice for parallel/concurrent solutions ? Just a thought.

If GPars was redundant (along with Quasar) because all the tools were
in the standard library, the JVM world would be a better place.

Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w:

View raw message