Hi Jochen, I need more context too. What changes are you talking about? It seems very abstract so far. I would be in favor of a joint compiler without stubs in Groovy core itself. I think both Gradle and Jetbrains would be interested in such a compiler too. And not talking about an incremental compiler. What, technically, are the necessary changes?
2016-02-23 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thibault Kruse <[email protected]>: > I needed some background information, I guess that is given in : > > http://blackdragsview.blogspot.de/2014/11/a-joint-compiler-for-groovy-and-java.html > http://blackdragsview.blogspot.de/2007/07/joint-compilation-in-groovy.html > > http://wiki.jvmlangsummit.com/images/8/8a/Clement_MixedLanguageProjectCompilationInEclipse.pdf > > I believe if the joint compiler has good chances of replacing the > current compiler it should live in Groovy core. If it is doomed to > forever remain an unloved twin, it should be a project of it's own. > > In the mean time it can either be a separate project with similar > package names (for easy migrationinto groovy later) , or an > experimental branch of groovy. > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > During transit I am these days working on a new joint compiler for > Groovy, > > one that handles Groovy transforms correctly and does not require stubs > (we > > can still create them). > > > > The current current version works for several cases and is still > incomplete, > > but there are some decisions to make in which I would like to ask the > people > > here about their opinion. > > > > The main point is actually about keeping the code in Groovy or not and > if to > > add the code to the Groovy codebase or not. > > > > A Groovy based joint compiler will not be easy to integrate in our > build, if > > it is supposed to run with current Groovy. The joint compiler on the > other > > hand does not require any changes to the current compiler, even though it > > could benefit from them. So in theory it would be possible to use any > Groovy > > 2.x with this joint compiler. I think that could be interesting as well. > > Though I have done nothing about build tools so far. At the very least > the > > best way of integrating them will require some thought - but I am not > sure > > that just replacing what we currently have in Groovy is the best way > here. > > And I do like the idea of using Groovy to build Groovy ;) > > > > Changing the codebase to Java will surely at least double the lines of > code > > and some logic changes since I do require double dispatch in many places. > > But I am still in a proof of concept phase, so there will naturally be > many > > lines of code more in the future as well. > > > > And of course, if the integration of such a compiler is not wished for, > it > > would naturally become its own project. > > > > So what do other people think about that? > > > > bye Jochen >
