groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: a new joint compiler
Date Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:03:04 GMT
Why is it hard to add to the build? Is it a bootstrapping issue?

On 23 February 2016 at 09:26, C├ędric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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