62 messages in org.codehaus.groovy.devRe: [groovy-dev] Groovy performance: ...
FromSent OnAttachments
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 2:09 am 
Steven DevijverFeb 19, 2008 2:37 am 
Alexandru Popescu ☀Feb 19, 2008 2:57 am 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 3:03 am 
Patric BechtelFeb 19, 2008 3:12 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 3:25 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 3:26 am 
Patric BechtelFeb 19, 2008 5:05 am 
Gavin GroverFeb 19, 2008 5:51 am 
Steven DevijverFeb 19, 2008 5:52 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 5:54 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 19, 2008 6:26 am 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 6:28 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 6:35 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 19, 2008 7:03 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 7:38 am 
Chanwit KaewkasiFeb 19, 2008 7:52 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 19, 2008 8:49 am 
Steven DevijverFeb 19, 2008 10:03 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 19, 2008 11:38 am 
Steven DevijverFeb 19, 2008 12:11 pm 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 12:39 pm 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 12:48 pm 
tugwilsonFeb 19, 2008 1:36 pm 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 8:51 pm 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 20, 2008 2:10 am 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 20, 2008 9:46 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 20, 2008 5:25 pm 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 21, 2008 1:35 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 21, 2008 4:15 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 21, 2008 5:44 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 21, 2008 6:22 am 
Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMAFeb 21, 2008 6:34 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 21, 2008 6:43 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 21, 2008 6:48 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 21, 2008 7:04 am 
Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMAFeb 21, 2008 7:18 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 21, 2008 7:38 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 21, 2008 7:42 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 21, 2008 8:36 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 21, 2008 8:48 am 
Pascal DeMillyFeb 21, 2008 5:35 pm 
Gavin GroverFeb 21, 2008 6:21 pm 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 22, 2008 4:31 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 22, 2008 4:49 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 22, 2008 11:43 pm 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 23, 2008 12:28 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 23, 2008 3:51 am 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 23, 2008 2:49 pm 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 23, 2008 2:53 pm 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 24, 2008 2:01 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 24, 2008 3:56 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 24, 2008 4:11 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 24, 2008 5:12 am 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 24, 2008 3:17 pm 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 24, 2008 3:31 pm 
Alexandru Popescu ☀Feb 24, 2008 3:36 pm 
Martin C. MartinFeb 26, 2008 2:20 pm 
Martin C. MartinFeb 26, 2008 3:15 pm 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 27, 2008 2:38 am 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 27, 2008 3:03 am 
Martin C. MartinMar 2, 2008 5:21 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: [groovy-dev] Groovy performance: what to doActions...
From:Steven Devijver (stev@gmail.com)
Date:Feb 19, 2008 5:52:32 am
List:org.codehaus.groovy.dev

On Feb 19, 2008 2:05 PM, Patric Bechtel <patr@gmail.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Guillaume Laforge schrieb am 19.02.2008 12:25:

Hi,

This is an interesting experiment.

However, as this has been discussed on this list a few times already or at the last Groovy Developer Conference, it's better and saner to make Groovy the fastest dynamic language possible on the JVM by creating the best second generation MOP, rather than by adding a few hacks to make Groovy a more statically typed language.

What would happen if such a proposal was committed? In a few months from now, all Groovy code samples we would come across would be littered with @Typed annotations all around -- who remembers the ugly @Property annotation making your Groovy beans ugly? A few months later, and people will wonder why this is not the default behavior and be applied to all possible methods or classes. Groovy will become more and more statically typed, and for "performance sake", we'd imagine other such hacks to make Groovy less and less dynamic over time, or littered with ugly annotations.

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...

It's not Groovy's destiny to cross that bridge. I agree with Guillaume.

Steven

- -- Patric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: GnuPT 2.5.2

iD8DBQFHutQafGgGu8y7ypARAjJcAKCyBCk38eMcpWKONXpMXjVoQySzgQCfU9D9 i8PgPw8Us0MoIlRDnHweBPs= =Nxy3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email