groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andres Almiray <aalmi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: About actor syntax for Groovy 3
Date Sat, 07 Jan 2017 17:58:28 GMT
You do know that Eclipse bears that name to signal the demise of Sun Microsystems, don't you?
;-)

We also had a long standing rivalry/quarrel with JRuby in the early days. We're friends now.
Clojure, Kotlin, Frege appear to be neutral. Scala lashes out at anything that's not Scala,
I wouldn't like to give them more reasons to hate us. 

I'm all for learning from other languages but I'm reluctant to change the core syntax in order
to support a niche usage (actors in this case). I prefer prototyping with ASTs or like Jesper
suggests, figure out if an existing construct may fit the bill. Looks like << may be
a good fit until you realize the method naming conventions

 actor << message
 actor.add(message)
 actor.send(message)

Yup, "add" does stand out but not in a very good way if I may say so.

Cheers
Andres

Sent from my primitive Tricorder

> On Jan 7, 2017, at 6:46 PM, Daniel Sun <realbluesun@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andres,
> 
>       If Scala was the sun, I wish Groovy was an eclipse ;)
> 
>       Maybe adding custom syntax for actor is not good idea for a programming language.
But as a programming language, Groovy should learn good things from others to keep evolving
and competitiveness. (like C# and Java)
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel.Sun
> 
> 
> 
> 在 "Andres Almiray [via Groovy]" <ml-node+[hidden email]>,2017年1月8日 上午1:28写道:
> This is a slippery slope IMHO. 
> 
> Adding custom syntax support in core for GPars might sound like a good idea given the
fact that GPars is bundled with core. OTOH what about Spock, Grails, Ratpack and others? Wouldn't
they benefit from custom syntax too? probably yes. Are they bundled with core? no, and they
shouldn't. 
> 
> My recommendation would be to prototype an AST transformation that can support the syntax,
just like Spock does it. 
> 
> One more thing, I would be very sad to see Groovy become a pale shade of Scala. Custom
syntax and new operators are pushing Groovy in that direction. 
> 
> Cheers 
> Andres 
> 
> Sent from my primitive Tricorder 
> 
> > On Jan 7, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Daniel Sun <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> > 
> > class ActorTest  { 
> >    def counter = new Counter() 
> >    counter.start() 
> > 
> >    for (i in 0 .. 100000) { 
> >        counter <- i    // send message to the counter actor 
> >    } 
> > } 
> > 
> > should be modified as: 
> > 
> > class ActorTest  { 
> >    public static void main(String[] args) { 
> >        def counter = new Counter() 
> >        counter.start() 
> > 
> >        for (i in 0 .. 100000) { 
> >          counter <- i    // send message to the counter actor 
> >        } 
> >    } 
> > } 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/About-actor-syntax-for-Groovy-3-tp5737574p5737575.html
> > Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. 
> 
> 
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/About-actor-syntax-for-Groovy-3-tp5737574p5737576.html
> To unsubscribe from About actor syntax for Groovy 3, click here.
> NAML
> 
> View this message in context: Re: About actor syntax for Groovy 3
> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message