It would definitely be a good thing to have a cleaner separation between the 2. It's not so easy to do so because of backwards compatibility issues.
2016-11-26 10:22 GMT+01:00 Tatai Márton <tataimarton...@gmail.com>: > Hello! > > I am trying to understand the Groovy language, and something keeps bugging > me. I thought I'd ask a question to maybe help my investigation along. > > I was surprised to see that the "lightest" distribution of Groovy still > contains an embedded version of antlr, asm (I suppose it's embedded to > ensure these classes are not overridden). > I can see that this is necessary to be able to compile and add Groovy code > to the JVM at runtime. > My question is: Is it possible to separate the compiler from the other > classes which are responsible for running the compiled Groovy code? > In my hypothetical scenario there would be a groovy-runtime jar, and a > groovy-compiler jar, and only if my application needed dynamic compilation > of Groovy scripts would I include the groovy-compiler. The groovy-runtime > would be sufficient to run already compiled Groovy programs. > I'm guessing the runtime system must have some inherent dependency on the > compiler that I have not figured out yet. > > Thank you very much for your help > Marton >
