3 ms·

If not having lambdas in Groovy isn't a problem, then why are they coming in Groovy 3 ?

• zmmmmm 8y ago
  Groovy 3 is full of nice-to-haves. Which is why it's taken forever. Anything that was a "problem" as you say got put into 2.4 / 2.5 (except for solving the Java9 module problem which is unsolved in any release ...).
  • vorg 8y ago
    It sounds like Groovy 3 is just a forever-pending product designed to be a catchment for the stuff Groovy's backers aren't really very concerned about, or perhaps don't even want put into Groovy. It's still in alpha, being delayed until after a Groovy 2.6 release and the project managers have had a "conversation" sometime down the line about what features should go into Groovy 3. If Groovy's project managers at Apache don't want a Groovy 3 release to avoid a debacle like Python 3 or Grails 3, then they should just come out and say so. Instead, they're letting others waste their time working on it while putting up roadblock after roadblock to slow it down.
• olavgg 8y ago
  Personally, I just write lambda or try with resources in Java. Groovy is great, but not for everything, I still write Javaish and with static typing whenever I write Groovy. Calling Java code from Groovy and Groovy from Java again is easy as they share the byte code.