The other big item we had envisioned for Groovy 3 were the rewrite of the grammar to Antlr v4, so as to support Java 8 language constructs.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 29.01.2016 00:16, Edinson E. Padrón U. wrote: >> >> Hi, Guillaume. >> >> In my very humble opinion (and it should be noticed that I'm very far >> away to know the Groovy community and language internals as well as you >> do), the Python 2.x vs 3.x 'war' was due to mainly a very slow adoption >> of the 3.x branch from the different third-party libraries. Even though >> the 3.x branch is far better than its predecessor, the community stuck >> with the 2.x branch because of the incompatibility of the libraries >> their depended on. > > > I wish you had any idea about how many projects did still use Groovy 1.8 a > year ago. It required a CVE for them to even consider changing. > > [...] >> >> Jigsaw is inevitable and that for itself >> require to break backward compatibility. > > > yes and no.. no, because this does not *require* a new MOP, which is all > Groovy3 originally was about. Yes, there will be breaking changes... our > extension methods will for example have to use proper service provider > mechanism, our modules may have to move a few classes because of the > almighty no same package for two modules paradigm - just to just name two > random items. It would be a good chance though to introduce a new MOP... > here I agree. > > bye Jochen > -- Guillaume Laforge Apache Groovy committer & PMC member Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge / Google+
