Talk:Apache Groovy

message: Should "functional" be added to the list of Groovy Paradigms?  It certainly seems to fit, given Groovy's extensive list of functional constructs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.29.25 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groovy Paradigms 

message: I believe Java does have native syntax for arrays. BDKosher 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features of Groovy compared to those of Java 

message: Groovy was originally conceived in 2003(?) as a more Ruby-like language for the Java Virtual Machine. Groovy Beta 1.0 announcement on James Strachan's blog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.138.72.243 (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Groovy 

message: Is there any particular reason why this article is at "Groovy (programming language)" rather than just at "Groovy", since the latter is just a redirect here? --  timc  talk   18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point as well. Will create a disambig page.--sin-man 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: How is markup language support any more special in Groovy than any other language?  The example provided can be accomplished in a whole array of other languages using their standard libraries.  This seems a pretty weak example to demonstrate a differentiating feature.  Can something more robust be demonstrated that truly differentiates Groovy markup support from other languages?
Ehogberg (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The language that Groovy intends to be a complement for/alternative to is Java. As a matter of fact, Groovy was designed to be easy to learn for Java programmers, while offering the more powerful features found at the time in other scripting/dynamic languages such as Python and Ruby. In this context, maybe the markup example should also be provided in Java? Ogourment (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a Java example (using the XML DOM libraries provided with the Sun JDK); if I'm understanding correctly what's supposed to be special about markup languages in Groovy, it's that there's an inline syntax for building documents that A) doesn't care what format the document will ultimately be in, as long as it can be expressed as a DOM tree, and B) doesn't require explicit method calls for setting up each element and attribute. evildeathmath 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markup Language support--don't see how this makes Groovy special. 

message: The article refers to an inline DOM syntax linked to DOM which is the w3c standard DOM. What i'm getting at is that DOM is an API standard whereas Groovy appears to implement it's own API, or rather allow xml construction using language features.
Dylan.star (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOM Compliance 

message: Are you serious? The shown examples just saves 6 or 8 characters. This is a bit more compact but not far more compact. --87.78.132.86 (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groovy's syntax can be made far more compact than Java 

message: I've marked this claim in the first paragraph as "dubious." The cited source makes the claim:
"Since the passage of JSR-241, Groovy is the second standard language for the Java platform (the first
being the Java language)."
but if you visit the page for JSR-241, it is clearly marked as "inactive," which means it was never made "final." It seems to me that the only sense of the word "standard" that is accurate for the JCP is a JSR in "final" status.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.174.23.57 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groovy as a "standard" 

message: The link to Curly_bracket_programming_language redirects to a page that doesn't include any list of "curly bracket programming languages". 87.63.228.190 (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: It doesn't seem appropriate to show Guillaume as the "developer" since his involvement is primarily as project manager.  Either the project should be listed (for example Python lists the Python Software Foundation) or if individuals are going to be shown then the determination should be a few (as in no more than three I think) of the developers who have done the most work (such as Jochen and ???).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesPaulWhite (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developer 

message: a) the two links provided were just userspace blogs, being primary sources and directly failing WP:NOTA,
b) none of the links provided have shown G2 with static compilation being faster than Java in any significant way above the confirmation threshold: blog 1  was obviously synthetic and got 0's in two test cases, and +/-3% for Java, Scala and G2 with CS (which constitute "almost as fast as" or "as fast as", but not "faster than"), blog 2  is much better in it's benchmark quality, yet resulting in 911ms vs 917ms, giving less than 1% of difference (again, not statistically relevant, taking into account the trial was below 1s and it was only a single benchmark algorithm, not a suite).
As such, until somebody can provide verifiable, credible and/or secondary source clearly showing G2/CS being either *significally* or *organically* (repetitively and consequently) faster, I've to remove the statement "or even faster than".
For reference, some example of proper benchmark pages (providing wide benchmarking suites on variety of hardware - thus being credible enough to use despite being primary source by itself):
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/
http://www.bioinformatics.org/benchmark/
http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/
Poponuro (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance 

message: The examples given are clearly not meta-programming but reflection/prototype extensions mechanisms. Based on the examples, it doesn't appear that Groovy supports meta-programming at all, but instead has moderate (albeit verbose) ability to extend pre-defined definitions. If it does have true meta-programming abilities like C++, D, etc, then better examples should be given. If not, the section should be rewritten or simply removed. I don't know groovy and I'm not the one to make this change. 2601:204:C002:7081:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one chimed in, I simply changed to to state prototyping (which it clearly is) and referenced the appropriate wikipedia article rather than the one that had literally nothing to do with Groovy's capabilities. The citations are still suspect though. 2601:204:C002:7081:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaprogramming 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Groovy (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317025737/http://groovy.codehaus.org/Differences+from+Java to http://groovy.codehaus.org/Differences+from+Java
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522213410/http://groovy.codehaus.org/Closures to http://groovy.codehaus.org/Closures
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm rather experienced with programming languages and paradigms, having experience with dozens of languages such as Scala and Haskell. A went through all the Groovy documentation on their website today. It was sad to see there's very little criticism about the language in the article here. Here's a list of thoughts I came up with:
* I'd say most of the language features are tiny additions to the syntactic layer with both positive and negative effects.
* For example, adding more implicit class imports might reduce the need for typing explicit imports, but compiling with those classes might affect the compile/runtime performance (e.g. loading).
* Many of the operators and other minor features take a everything but the kitchen sink (featuritis) approach - instead of calling contains you can call in, instead of compareTo you have a spaceship. Saving 4 to 6 keypresses doesn't seem like a valid reason to add features.
* Both the documentation and the article seem to compare Groovy with a dated version of Java. Now that Java has streams, basic local type inference, lambdas, static/private/default in interfaces etc., it's fair to say it has caught up Groovy quite well.
I'm pretty sure there are articles and references related to each of these points. Gotta see if I have time to consider this more.
82.128.254.60 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism