On 22.06.2016 09:59, Thibault Kruse wrote:
I don't think the dynamic nature of Groovy is in general regarded as the weakest point of Groovy right now. However, I believe a fully static Groovy may still be preferrable than the dynamic Groovy, mostly from the point of view of maintaining and extending Groovy in the future, without financial sponsoring.
I actually don't get that... financial sponsoring is related to bug fixing and new features. How is it related to static typing vs. dynamic typing. Yes, there are bugs, but the static side has surely more generics bugs, than the dynamic side. Implementation wise you move from the runtime to the compiler, but the complexity is imho higher in the compiler, because the abstraction level higher and at the same time the detail work is more. So this would for me actually speak against the static one if I came from that direction.
If you did actually did mean support... there are several companies that are happy to give Groovy support if you pay them.
I would also be wary of shipping more variants of Groovy, the question to me is whether Groovy should just drop runtime dynamics. It would kind of stop being Groovy, but it might still be great.
what we wanted to do is a library you can use instead of the groovy jar, if you do only static compilation. Ideally you would have the static base library and the dynamic part on top. But this is a lot of work with not enough work force right now. And it is not clear if that can even be done.
bye Jochen
