I can say as someone who writes Groovy on a daily basis for about a year now on a project that uses CompileStatic by default on a team of 6-10 that we haven’t had many problems forgetting @CompileStatic or been too annoyed with it. Although as I’ve said in earlier post, we have forgotten once or twice and that did have a substantial impact. In your IDE you can even create a file template for Groovy class to add @CompileStatic for you. It’s not bad and IDE support follows. Therefore, I would say current Groovy support is good enough for those looking for a static language. For us using something like compiler configuration would just confuse things, especially since it is likely invisible to IDE.
Jason From: Mr Andersson [mailto:mr.andersson....@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:31 PM To: users@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project On 06/21/2016 08:08 PM, Winnebeck, Jason wrote: I would say that if you use the config script, then it would mean you’d want to use @CompileDynamic on every class where you don’t want static. It’s a default. I would think once you start adding logic into a compiler config script like that you’ll get into trouble with users being confused. I’m going to say something a little radical: if you want to use static compilation all the time, you may want to consider Kotlin, which is 1.0 now and similar to Groovy but is static compiled all the time. No offense to Jochen and other’s amazing work that I think brought new life to Groovy (I’d probably not be using it all were it not for CompileStatic), I’ve encountered a handful of compiler bugs unfortunately and still do from time to time, enough that I’ve learned how to read Java bytecode. I still like the language features of Groovy better and I haven’t found any solution other than dynamic Groovy to reasonably process web services/documents though, so I still like Groovy better until it’s possible to combine Kotlin+Groovy or Kotlin adds dynamic features. If you do use Groovy static compile then make sure definitely to go with the latest 2.4.7. Exactly my point. I do not want to switch to Kotlin or Scala because you would have to learn a new language. Groovy's power is that it is so similar to Java "yet as powerful". If groovy were to make a compilestatic jar file, then it will be more attractive to many requiring and liking a statically typed language. This is the weakest point of groovy right now, and it would win the last argument and become a choice for those choosing a statically typed JVM language, yet can go into dynamic mode on demand. Jason From: Mario Garcia [mailto:mario.g...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:03 PM To: users@groovy.apache.org<mailto:users@groovy.apache.org> Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project If I'm not wrong, projects like Spock doesn't like @CompileStatic so in case I would like to statically compile my project, at least I should be telling the compiler not to compile statically my specifications. Something like: withConfig(configuration) { source(unitValidator: { unit -> !unit.AST.classes.any { it.name.endsWith('Spec') } }) { ast(CompileStatic) } } my two cents Mario 2016-06-21 18:44 GMT+02:00 Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com<mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com>>: A strong -1 for both options. We already have 2 variants of Groovy today, indy and non indy, and in practice *nobody uses the invokedynamic version* because it's impractical to use. Typically projects depend on `groovy.jar` or `groovy-all.jar`, not their invokedynamic version. Adding a new dimension, which is orthogonal to invokedynamic makes it even more complicated. Don't forget that the Groovy compiler is also mixed in its runtime (which is a problem of its own). We should solve that first. Second, IDEs need to know whether a file is statically compiled or not. The `@CompileStatic` annotation makes it very clear, and the default is the standard dynamic mode that has been in Groovy for more than 10 years. IDEs know about it, and it's simple to infer. Any alternative solution, like the config script, or an alternate compiler (!) makes it impossible for the IDE to guess. The only IDE-pragmatic solution is to have a distinct file extension for statically compiled Groovy files (say, .sgroovy instead of .groovy). So far this has been ruled out, but I think it's the most pragmatic, and IDE friendly, solution. 2016-06-21 18:37 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson <mr.andersson....@gmail.com<mailto:mr.andersson....@gmail.com>>: On 06/21/2016 02:38 PM, Winnebeck, Jason wrote: Tying Cédric’s advice to your previous question about gmavenplus and joint compilation, per https://github.com/groovy/GMavenPlus/wiki/Examples#configuration-script you add the configuration tag with a reference to your groovy script. I also mentioned that I could not get Gmavenplus to work, but maybe i did something wrong. But I literally copied and pasted that section. Actually about 90+% of our code base in Groovy is CompileStatic I wonder if we should use that. Cédric, if we use the config script method, is it still possible to use the “skip” annotation to switch back to dynamic mode? Even if it worked, I highly doubt IntelliJ IDEA would know about it and think all files are dynamic typing so probably it’s still best for us to add @CompileStatic everywhere, but sometimes we forget where we wanted it. The performance difference is extreme when we forget it, on a certain class we missed recently it took our page rendering times from about 4ms to 52ms, so for us it’s an actual “bug” to forget to add @CompileStatic. The problem with the ANT task is that I don't think I can set classpath argumetns to the actual so passing the config location is a problem that needs be resolved. Not that easy with maven. Groovy should instead provide a default GroovyStatic-2.4.4.jar file that enables this by default. That way everybody wins, and Groovy could join the club of static languages and not get rejected by those that needs to get Groovy. It is also messy to set up config files for every maven module, although I am not sure. The code in that config file is also not dynamic. withConfig(configuration) { ast(groovy.transform.CompileStatic) } and a simple option -compileStatic that uses an internal version of that file is preferable and SIMPLER. groovyc -configscript src/conf/config.groovy src/main/groovy/MyClass.groovy Is not needed here. Jason From: Cédric Champeau [mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:29 AM To: users@groovy.apache.org<mailto:users@groovy.apache.org> Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project It's in the docs: http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/documentation/#_static_compilation_by_default 2016-06-21 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mr Andersson <mr.andersson....@gmail.com<mailto:mr.andersson....@gmail.com>>: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project? Or do you have to do it on a per class basis? I like Groovy for some of it's features, and mostly for it's close to Java syntax but I would really like it to be a static language. I've heard about Groovy++ but I believe that's dead by now, no? Question is wether you can tell the Groovy compiler with a flag to treat all Groovy classes on certain paths as static? Preferable doable from ANT too. ________________________________ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.
