[...] I'm not sure if this is really true. So far, there's plenty of Java programmers out there who would *love* to use Groovy if there was more compile time checking involved. But, and I understand that, that's not possible as long as everything is super-dynamic. It's not that I don't appreciate that, it's very very nice. Really. But as even a typo in a variable goes unnoticed by the compiler, it's annoying compared to Java to prototype an algorithm. So, sometimes, it would be nice to make the compiler more strict, so that less things go unnoticed into runtime failures. I can speak only for my colleagues and me, as we currently use yet another "alternative" language for Java development, and as syntax is already very similar, a switch to or coexistence with Groovy would be, given the possibilities of Groovy, very nice.

To emphasize my point: It's less the speed (though welcome, but we are not doing raw numeric calculations anyway), it's the convenience and the confidence of getting the source through compile stage (we are not using an IDE) and being able to concentrate onto the algorithm itself. Maybe we should think about the @Typed annotation as tip to the compiler for stricter checks? Or we rename it and leave it to future compiler versions to optimize differently according to this setting?

At least, we have to pick up the majority of java programmers where they currently are, and not where you wish them to be. I'm a strong advocate of Groovy and use it wherever I can and urge others to do the same. But given a bridge to static typed minds to get to Groovy dynamic worlds would help them come over...