> Also groovy is a bag language. This seems to be a repeated pattern that is really giving Groovy a bad reputation: it keeps getting embedded as an extension p

> Also groovy is a bag language. This seems to be a repeated pattern that is really giving Groovy a bad reputation: it keeps getting embedded as an extension point / scripting solution inside other products. It is sold as "it's almost the same as Java, so we don't need any documentation for it" - and the result is that people with little to no Groovy knowledge end up trying to use it and get incredibly frustrated with it. I'm curious if your conclusion above is based only on encountering it inside other things (Gradle,Jenkins, etc) or if it's actually from analysing its characteristics as a language more generically? (FWIW, Groovy is probably my favorite language, but I use it as a full stack language for application development, quite a different mode to how most other people encounter it).