groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Groovy 3.0
Date Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:25:16 GMT
The other big item we had envisioned for Groovy 3 were the rewrite of
the grammar to Antlr v4, so as to support Java 8 language constructs.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 29.01.2016 00:16, Edinson E. PadrĂ³n U. wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Guillaume.
>>
>> In my very humble opinion (and it should be noticed that I'm very far
>> away to know the Groovy community and language internals as well as you
>> do), the Python 2.x vs 3.x 'war' was due to mainly a very slow adoption
>> of the 3.x branch from the different third-party libraries. Even though
>> the 3.x branch is far better than  its predecessor, the community stuck
>> with the 2.x branch because of the incompatibility of the libraries
>> their depended on.
>
>
> I wish you had any idea about how many projects did still use Groovy 1.8 a
> year ago. It required a CVE for them to even consider changing.
>
> [...]
>>
>> Jigsaw is inevitable and that for itself
>> require to break backward compatibility.
>
>
> yes and no.. no, because this does not *require* a new MOP, which is all
> Groovy3 originally was about. Yes, there will be breaking changes... our
> extension methods will for example have to use proper service provider
> mechanism, our modules may have to move a few classes because of the
> almighty no same package for two modules paradigm - just to just name two
> random items. It would be a good chance though to introduce a new MOP...
> here I agree.
>
> bye Jochen
>



-- 
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge / Google+

Mime
View raw message