Sunday, January 13, 2008

Groovy is a Better Java

At Code Mash, Neal Ford, Chris Judd, and I had a interesting chat about Groovy as a Better Java. The question that we came to ask : Is Groovy Java 3.0 or is it what JDK 2.0 should have been?

The one thing that we all agreed to is: Groovy is a Better Java.

What do you think?


6 comments:

A.A.A said...

groovy is not Java 3.

Jim Shingler said...

Why not? What is it missing that you would like to see in Java 3?

Anonymous said...

Let's suppose that syntax-wise and feature-wise, "Groovy is a Better Java". However performance-wise, it's AGES behind Java, and a hell lot of other languages as well...

Having said that, if you appreciate the value of mandatory static typing, Groovy is sure not a better Java.

IMO a better Java is semantic-wise very similar to Java, but syntax-wise it is notably conciser and less verbose.

Jim Shingler said...

Ah yes, I recognize the points you have made, . . . but groovy doesn't prevent typing, . . . It does allow you to make a choice.

As it relates to performance, . . . Depending upon how you write the groovy, it compiles down to byte code. So depending upon the particulars of the situation, I believe that it can be every bit as fast as Java.

In addition, the great thing about groovy is that it doesn't prevent you from using Java. They work together very well.

Andres Almiray said...

Yes, as Scott Davis said before, Groovy is not an OR proposition with Java, it is an EITHER proposition. Groovy embraces Java, other JVM languages are very public in their dislike of Java (why make a JVM language then, if you _need_ Java to run the language in the first case?)

Seymour Cakes said...

Groovy makes Java way better.