Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

A non-alpha 2.6.0 is a possibility but not my favored approach. On our roadmap for 3.0 we are still fleshing out numerous things: * we have a version of native lambdas but perhaps not how our final design might look * we have to decide whether default methods in interfaces should be implemented us

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I strongly advocate for option 2. I think the biggest threat to the future of Groovy is JDK9 support. > On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Paul King wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of Groovy > 3.0. Some of that discussion was around

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Option 2 or 3.  I'm running Grails 2.5.3 on JDK 8, although I intend to upgrade to the current versions, when I have the time for that. On 2018-06-13 07:53 , Scott Hickey wrote: I've have always appreciated the willingness of the Groovy team to recognize that enterprises can't always move quic

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Paul King wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Dawson > > wrote: > I would vote 2. > > Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. > > We identified a few major things that were broken in the

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Dawson < david.daw...@simplicityitself.com> wrote: > I would vote 2. > > Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. > We identified a few major things that were broken in the previous alpha release of 2.6 but only due to trivial packaging issues, hen

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Corum, Michael wrote: > If 3.0 will still support JDK8, I’d vote for option 3 as well. If 3 will > require 9, then maybe option 2. > > > Groovy 3.0 has JDK8 as minimum. Cheers, Paul.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Bloated, is the word I was looking for... Den 2018-06-13 19:46, skrev h...@abula.org: I did come from Java myself, and I understand the argument to ease the transition from Java to Groovy, but as Java adopts language features from Groovy, I worry that supporting both syntaxes will create a more

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I've have always appreciated the willingness of the Groovy team to recognize that enterprises can't always move quickly to current versions of Java. At Mutual of Omaha, we do have almost everything running on JDK 8 now. We are actively trying to get our few remaining Grails 2.x versions upgraded t

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I did come from Java myself, and I understand the argument to ease the transition from Java to Groovy, but as Java adopts language features from Groovy, I worry that supporting both syntaxes will create a more complex language with more options, more stuff to learn, and less clarity. Besides,

GraalVM/Truffle ?

Since GraalVM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GraalVM) was mentioned here recently: Do we have any statement on plans of Groovy with regards to GraalVM, including Truffle ? It might be good to have an official statement here on the main Groovy page and on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

On 6/13/2018 10:24 AM, h...@abula.org wrote: (I may be alone on this one, but I'd even suggest to consider some of the Java syntax compatibility, if this helps speed up Groovy 3. If I need to write Java code, I can always put it in .java files.) Java-syntax-compatibility-only-support in Gro

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Option 2 or 3 from my side. I have thought about this, and given the fast movement of the Java universe at the moment it seems the right move, from a resources and public perception point of view. Also, Groovy 2.5 is not too shabby, so still being on JDK 7 it is not like "no Groovy for you" ;

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Agree with option 3 as well. If you're stuck on pre jdk8 and have groovy 2.5 - that's a pretty good situation. JDK9/10/11+ compatibility is the direction the language needs to go. On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:19 AM sigzero wrote: > Option 3. > > You can always revisit the 2.6 branch if that becomes

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Option 3. You can always revisit the 2.6 branch if that becomes necessary. Resources being scarce (as others have said), put them where they are needed on Groovy 3. -- Bob On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Corum, Michael wrote: > If 3.0 will still support JDK8, I’d vote for option 3 as well. I

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

If 3.0 will still support JDK8, I’d vote for option 3 as well. If 3 will require 9, then maybe option 2. Michael Corum VP, Technical Architecture Solutions RGA Reinsurance Company 16600 Swingley Ridge Road Chesterfield, Missouri 6301701706 T 636.736.7066 www.rgare.com From: Paul King Reply-To

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

As with everyone else: option 3, or even just solving the Java9+ issue separate from 3.0 is much more important than JDK7. Cheers, Simon On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Iván López wrote: > I also vote for Option 3. I think it is better to focus on JDK 9+ than in > JDK 7. > > Regards, Iván. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I also vote for Option 3. I think it is better to focus on JDK 9+ than in JDK 7. Regards, Iván. -- @ilopmar On 13 June 2018 at 11:30, Russel Winder wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 08:11 +0100, David Dawson wrote: > > I would vote 2. > > > > Actually, i would vot

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 08:11 +0100, David Dawson wrote: > I would vote 2. > > Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. > I vote for Option 3, abandon 2.6 immediately. With so little resource, the Groovy project must focus on forward looking work, not backward looking stuff. JDK10 is wh

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Hi, For me, Groovy 3.0 is the most important thing. Chris Le mer. 13 juin 2018 à 09:06, Paul King a écrit : > > Hi everyone, > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of > Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to > include and ha

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I say 3. (I may be alone on this one, but I'd even suggest to consider some of the Java syntax compatibility, if this helps speed up Groovy 3. If I need to write Java code, I can always put it in .java files.) Haakon Hansen Den 2018-06-13 10:08, skrev Mario Garcia: I would say 3 as well

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I would say 3 as well 2018-06-13 10:04 GMT+02:00 Robert Oschwald : > Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects are > still on Grails 2. > > > Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius : > > While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I think >

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects are still on Grails 2. > Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius : > > While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I think > that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge projects on to

Re: AST to replace `==` with `equals` method invocation

Hi Paolo: A couple of years ago I created Asteroid ( https://github.com/grooviter/asteroid) a library to deal with AST transformations. I needed to create a minor release so I've taken the oportunity to solve this problem and I think is pretty easy. - Create a Transformer. A transformer is jus

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I think that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge projects on to a higher version of Grails as well). /Søren On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , wrote: > I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). > > > > JDK 6 or 7 i

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility. Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including GraalVM), more than legacy support. Bes

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including GraalVM), more than legacy support. Cheers, p On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson < david.daw...

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

2 for me as well. Il mer 13 giu 2018, 09:11 David Dawson ha scritto: > I would vote 2. > > Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. > > No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7. > > *From:* pa...@asert.com.au > *Sent:* 13 June 2018 08:06 > *To:* users@groovy.apache.org > *Re

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I would vote 2.Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.

[DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Hi everyone, There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to include and have yet to complete in 3.0 but I won't discuss that right now. One of the other discussion points was Groovy around 2.6. As