Mailing-List: contact users-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to enable CompileStatic for an entire project
To: users@groovy.apache.org
References: <576931E8.7000606@gmail.com>
 <CADQzvmnOSQMuaBOHu9ckCzG1FXwuiM3Qz0akRLyhiE6wq+4MvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5C676E6359909E478C7B811BDB48CA354A6318@CWWAPP478.windstream.com>
 <57696D31.4080604@gmail.com>
 <CADQzvm=_W_duAk0SnNeXXAGoDwwOMEN=tL+qpCN1-rBiHyj0Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJp1MBOhH3ztZ8Jf4qZKGVfd=tOdPJAtpdck2V6JNRyKonESHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5C676E6359909E478C7B811BDB48CA354A6703@CWWAPP478.windstream.com>
 <5769B22E.8070907@gmail.com>
 <CAByu6UXNryXjX6rWcOX7ib63vsRuAFzPiLAsmy0Vh1_UuxosPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>
Message-ID: <576A728A.6050406@gmx.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:12:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAByu6UXNryXjX6rWcOX7ib63vsRuAFzPiLAsmy0Vh1_UuxosPw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:12:23 -0000


On 22.06.2016 09:59, Thibault Kruse wrote:
> I don't think the dynamic nature of Groovy is in general regarded as
> the weakest point of Groovy right now. However, I believe a fully
> static Groovy may still be preferrable than the dynamic Groovy, mostly
> from the point of view of maintaining and extending Groovy in the
> future, without financial sponsoring.

I actually don't get that... financial sponsoring is related to bug 
fixing and new features. How is it related to static typing vs. dynamic 
typing. Yes, there are bugs, but the static side has surely more 
generics bugs, than the dynamic side. Implementation wise you move from 
the runtime to the compiler, but the complexity is imho higher in the 
compiler, because the abstraction level higher and at the same time the 
detail work is more. So this would for me actually speak against the 
static one if I came from that direction.

If you did actually did mean support... there are several companies that 
are happy to give Groovy support if you pay them.

> I would also be wary of shipping more variants of Groovy, the question
> to me is whether Groovy should just drop runtime dynamics. It would
> kind of stop being Groovy, but it might still be great.

what we wanted to do is a library you can use instead of the groovy jar, 
if you do only static compilation. Ideally you would have the static 
base library and the dynamic part on top. But this is a lot of work with 
not enough work force right now. And it is not clear if that can even be 
done.

bye Jochen