groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <>
Subject Re: Groovy 3.0
Date Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:05:51 GMT

On 31.01.2016 21:29, Thibault Kruse wrote:
> Are Antlr 4 and Jva 8 syntax linked somethow, meaning is there a hard
> problem describing certain java8 features using whatever antlr version
> is used right now?

They are linked in that way, that it does not really make sense to do 
bigger syntax changes in antlr2, if we then want to go to antlr4 would 
be double work to do it for antlr2 and antlr4. But thats actually all 
that is to it.

> I would assume that porting Groovy to Java9 takes precendence over
> changing the syntax, so it would be nice to have a roadmap that decide
> which version will contain which of those changes.

We can make a "1 feature per version" style roadmap.. without target 
times... not sure if that really makes sense though. If someone wants to 
work on a new feature out of order (because for example that person has 
a fitting current skill set for that task, but not for the scheduled 
one), then I am not really against this person doing that. A roadmap 
might be problematic in that... so we imho need one for enduser 
information and one for developers

> Given the scarce
> resources it might be useful to separate these changes, but given that
> the API will change in either case, it might be better to have one
> avalanche of a change rather than annoying users multiple times.

It is normally better to release more often. I would have released a 
beta on Groovy 2.5 for example a long time ago, even without the module 
part completed. And that is mainly because I have experienced dragged 
out releases in the past before Groovy 1.0, and what negative effects 
they have. But anyway... a change that breaks compatibility is 
different. So I agree... but given the sparse resources, I am afraid it 
would be too long too. Best would be to have a migration plan, do the 
breaking changes in one release, but back that with old logic... if that 
is possible.

bye Jochen

View raw message