groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From C├ędric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: a new joint compiler
Date Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:26:24 GMT
Hi Jochen,

I need more context too. What changes are you talking about? It seems very
abstract so far. I would be in favor of a joint compiler without stubs in
Groovy core itself. I think both Gradle and Jetbrains would be interested
in such a compiler too. And not talking about an incremental compiler.
What, technically, are the necessary changes?

2016-02-23 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thibault Kruse <tibokruse@googlemail.com>:

> I needed some background information, I guess that is given in :
>
> http://blackdragsview.blogspot.de/2014/11/a-joint-compiler-for-groovy-and-java.html
> http://blackdragsview.blogspot.de/2007/07/joint-compilation-in-groovy.html
>
> http://wiki.jvmlangsummit.com/images/8/8a/Clement_MixedLanguageProjectCompilationInEclipse.pdf
>
> 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 <blackdrag@gmx.org>
> 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
>

Mime
View raw message