tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35155095.post116848671762743233..comments2008-05-12T20:32:45.666-05:00Jeff Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00865412847796927368noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35155095.post-1168574170197770722007-01-11T21:56:00.000-06:002007-01-11T21:56:00.000-06:00

Jeff & Daniel,Point well taken. Hadn't thought about how tightly coupled they would become.Daniel is right, but I think Sun ought to be looking at 2 things: supporting more languages on the JVM rather than making Java (the language) more like those other languages and improving the core class libraries.Unless I'm really missing the point, doesn't Java already have closures in the form of

Andyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18072438758057706833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35155095.post-1168561935900614782007-01-11T18:32:00.000-06:002007-01-11T18:32:00.000-06:00

On JavaLobby I suggested adding new syntax to Java to allow embedded Groovy code within a Java method:public void doStuff() { Person person = ...; FormBean input = ...; groovy { // write any valid Groovy code here person.surname = input.surname; } }The Groovy code would (optionally) be compiled at the same time as javac compiles the rest of the Java class, and the bytecode would be

Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35155095.post-1168552834543116792007-01-11T16:00:00.000-06:002007-01-11T16:00:00.000-06:00

I agree with Daniel.Groovy shouldnt be added to the jdk..but it would be nice if some hooks were added to the jvm that would allow dynamic languages like Groovy to perform closer to the speed of java.

Jeff Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00865412847796927368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35155095.post-1168551964527314872007-01-11T15:46:00.000-06:002007-01-11T15:46:00.000-06:00

I agree with andy wrt JDK logging, they should have adopted log4j instead of reinveinting it (poorly).But I don't think that Groovy should be rolled into the JDK. Java should be "pure OO" and statically typed, and, and Groovy it's "functional-friendly", dynamic cousin.Sun should sponsor Groovy and add dynamic language features to the JVM, not the Java language. Featuritis is killing Java... :-(

Daniel Serodiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16865056761819838243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35155095.post-1168542747494340312007-01-11T13:12:00.000-06:002007-01-11T13:12:00.000-06:00

grovvy is good for some things, but productivity gains are as usual greately exaggerated. it is not really magic hammer. two big killers: tool support, and performance royally sucks. still i would prefer it to ruby of course.

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35155095.post-1168532673333051652007-01-11T10:24:00.000-06:002007-01-11T10:24:00.000-06:00

Andy,I think most people would prefer that Groovy not be rolled into the jdk, because then new Groovy releases would be tied to new jdk releases. (i.e. the release schedules would have to be the same, i guess)

Jeff Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00865412847796927368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35155095.post-1168526742811716962007-01-11T08:45:00.000-06:002007-01-11T08:45:00.000-06:00

So why can't the Groovy JSR be rolled in to Java 7? JDK7 could then have Rhino and Groovy as scripting options. Or is JDK7 going to make the same kind of mistake as JDK1.4 did with logging and give some watered down solution that's just "good enough"?

Andyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18072438758057706833noreply@blogger.com