On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> wrote: > I made this remark to myself, which is that too many people still think that > Groovy is only a dynamic language. I think it's a problem because > it's not, and some people really dislike dynamic languages. When they read > something like "the Groovy dynamic object-oriented programming language" > (from the Apache blog post) > may not realize that it's much more than that (it was only dynamic a few > years ago, but it has evolved a lot, and now a static language as much as > it is a dynamic one). So I would lean towards rephrasing the first paragraph > of the proposal from "It is a primarily dynamic language with features > similar to those of Python, Ruby, Perl, and Smalltalk." > to "It is a programming language with features similar to those of Python, > Ruby, Java, Perl, and Smalltalk." > And if possible, everything we see "dynamic programming language", remove > the mention to "dynamic" to just "programming language". What do you think? > It's not that I don't like the dynamic > programming aspects of Groovy of course, but I think we should not cut off > part of our user base just by making erroneous statements.
Sure. That looks good to me. That being said -- what's written on the proposal is only important to the IPMC so I don't think it'll be a huge change in outside perception one way or another. Thanks, Roman. P.S. That said, I never stop being amazed at what kind of 'karma' outside folks associate with mundane things like being mentioned on an IPMC proposal. To me, what happens *after* you get accepted and how you project your community to the outside world is way more important than. But then again, may be I've been at a sausage factory for too long ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
