atom feed20 messages in org.codehaus.groovy.devGroovy "a long time to get to 1.0"
FromSent OnAttachments
John WilsonFeb 8, 2007 7:47 am 
Raffaele CastagnoFeb 8, 2007 7:53 am 
Marc PalmerFeb 8, 2007 7:56 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 8, 2007 8:05 am 
Scott HickeyFeb 8, 2007 8:27 am 
John WilsonFeb 8, 2007 8:30 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 8, 2007 8:39 am 
Alexandru PopescuFeb 10, 2007 1:15 pm 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 10, 2007 1:26 pm 
Daniel.SunFeb 12, 2007 2:44 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 12, 2007 2:50 am 
Fred JanonFeb 12, 2007 3:11 am 
Alexandru PopescuFeb 12, 2007 2:27 pm 
Marc PalmerFeb 13, 2007 1:46 am 
Graeme RocherFeb 13, 2007 2:12 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 13, 2007 2:52 am 
Marc PalmerFeb 13, 2007 2:57 am 
Alexandru PopescuFeb 13, 2007 2:58 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 13, 2007 3:03 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 13, 2007 4:39 am 
Subject:Groovy "a long time to get to 1.0"
From:John Wilson (tu@wilson.co.uk)
Date:Feb 8, 2007 7:47:18 am
List:org.codehaus.groovy.dev

I'm getting slightly irritated by reading that Groovy has "emerged from it's log gestation period" and the like.

Please do not reinforce this view.

Here are some facts to help:

Groovy has been going for just on three years and we are at 1.0

Java started (as Oak) in June 1991 and was released as 1.0alpha on May 23rd 1995

Python started in 1991 and was released in 1994

Ruby started in 1993 and 1.0alpha was released on August 13th 1997

Reference: http://www.levenez.com/lang/history.html#05

From the above it seems we have taken pretty much the industry standard time to develop a programming language.

If you can please point this out, politely, to anybody suggesting we took a long time.