groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thibault Kruse <>
Subject Re: a new joint compiler
Date Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:18:26 GMT
I needed some background information, I guess that is given in :

I believe if the joint compiler has good chances of replacing the
current compiler it should live in Groovy core. If it is doomed to
forever remain an unloved twin, it should be a project of it's own.

In the mean time it can either be a separate project with similar
package names (for easy migrationinto groovy later) , or an
experimental branch of groovy.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Jochen Theodorou <> wrote:
> Hi all,
> During transit I am these days working on a new joint compiler for Groovy,
> one that handles Groovy transforms correctly and does not require stubs (we
> can still create them).
> The current current version works for several cases and is still incomplete,
> but there are some decisions to make in which I would like to ask the people
> here about their opinion.
> The main point is actually about keeping the code in Groovy or not and if to
> add the code to the Groovy codebase or not.
> A Groovy based joint compiler will not be easy to integrate in our build, if
> it is supposed to run with current Groovy. The joint compiler on the other
> hand does not require any changes to the current compiler, even though it
> could benefit from them. So in theory it would be possible to use any Groovy
> 2.x with this joint compiler. I think that could be interesting as well.
> Though I have done nothing about build tools so far. At the very least the
> best way of integrating them will require some thought - but I am not sure
> that just replacing what we currently have in Groovy is the best way here.
> And I do like the idea of using Groovy to build Groovy ;)
> Changing the codebase to Java will surely at least double the lines of code
> and some logic changes since I do require double dispatch in many places.
> But I am still in a proof of concept phase, so there will naturally be many
> lines of code more in the future as well.
> And of course, if the integration of such a compiler is not wished for, it
> would naturally become its own project.
> So what do other people think about that?
> bye Jochen

View raw message