tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-883349787615020641.post5262649137075721557..comments2023-11-18T02:31:54.410-05:00Comments on Shingler's Thoughts: Groovy is a Better JavaJim Shinglerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08784772625961834908noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-883349787615020641.post-61062040079359765212008-02-04T20:30:00.000-05:002008-02-04T20:30:00.000-05:00Groovy makes Java way better.Groovy makes Java way better.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257037423143802963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-883349787615020641.post-69967846959607179252008-01-18T17:34:00.000-05:002008-01-18T17:34:00.000-05:00Yes, as Scott Davis said before, Groovy is not an ...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?)Andres Almirayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10710950259740699258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-883349787615020641.post-91113238150631836952008-01-14T07:23:00.000-05:002008-01-14T07:23:00.000-05:00Ah yes, I recognize the points you have made, . . ...Ah yes, I recognize the points you have made, . . . but groovy doesn't prevent typing, . . . It does allow you to make a choice.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>In addition, the great thing about groovy is that it doesn't prevent you from using Java. They work together very well.Jim Shinglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08784772625961834908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-883349787615020641.post-36700141127526438412008-01-13T13:37:00.000-05:002008-01-13T13:37:00.000-05:00Let's suppose that syntax-wise and feature-wise, "...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...<BR/><BR/>Having said that, if you appreciate the value of mandatory static typing, Groovy is sure not a better Java.<BR/><BR/>IMO a better Java is semantic-wise very similar to Java, but syntax-wise it is notably conciser and less verbose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-883349787615020641.post-41474823747018210642008-01-13T12:55:00.000-05:002008-01-13T12:55:00.000-05:00Why not? What is it missing that you would like t...Why not? What is it missing that you would like to see in Java 3?Jim Shinglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08784772625961834908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-883349787615020641.post-69248745853852493452008-01-13T12:33:00.000-05:002008-01-13T12:33:00.000-05:00groovy is not Java 3.groovy is not Java 3.afsinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07225476124525448066noreply@blogger.com