groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andres Almiray <aalmi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Groovy and JVM version [was Testing the Java 8 / Parrot parser online!]
Date Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:26:57 GMT
Measure, don't guess! ;-)

Perhaps setting up a set of JMH benchmarks would help? I know there's a
Gradle plugin for it (wink wink, nudge nudge).

-------------------------------------------
Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast
http://andresalmiray.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray
--
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and
those who don't.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would only make indy the default if we have performance tests showing
> that it's as fast as, or better than the legacy call site caching, with JDK
> 8+. There's a "performance" submodule that we could use for that purpose
> too. As far as I remember, not too far away, there were quite a few cases
> where indy was slower, in particular when primitive types are involved,
> even on JDK 8. If we are faster, then it's obviously a big +1, but we
> shouldn't speculate here.
>
> 2017-03-27 16:03 GMT+02:00 Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au>:
>
>> Russel, seems we were thinking about the same things. I responded to
>> the earlier thread. Does that answer your question?
>> In summary, we could start trying to move to indy only on master. I
>> think stability wise we are in good shape. There are some question
>> marks still however about indy performance in some circumstances, so
>> we no doubt would want to do a fresh round of performance checks.
>>
>> Cheers, Paul.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Russel Winder <russel@winder.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 09:26 +0100, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>> >> […]
>> >>
>> >> I cannot suggest to users to use indy with a normal JDK7, so the
>> >> minimum
>> >> requirement for it is JDK8. And we are not there yet.
>> >
>> > I have to admit I am still of the opinion that you define a version
>> > that will be the last version compatible with infrastructure X and the
>> > say, if you want to use a later version upgrade your infrastructure. I
>> > think Groovy is past that point with JVM; I do not see why development
>> > of our product should be beholden to the inability of people to upgrade
>> > from Java 7 to Java 8.
>> >
>> > Are we going to say that Groovy 2.5 will only work with JDK8 or does
>> > that have to wait for 2.6 or 3.0? Given master is no beyond 2.5 can we
>> > get rid of the two build set up for master and just have indy?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Russel.
>> > ============================================================
>> =================
>> > Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200 <+44%2020%207585%202200>
>>  voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net
>> > 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk
>> > London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message