4 ms·
LinkedIn has been using Grails for ~4 years. It's a terrific framework, but we found that Groovy was one of the downsides. The language is very easy to learn an
by brikis98 14y ago
LinkedIn has been using Grails for ~4 years. It's a terrific framework, but we found that Groovy was one of the downsides. The language is very easy to learn and use with Java, but we found that it didn't scale nearly as well to large numbers of users or developers. It's worth noting that this was pre Groovy 2.0, so I'm not sure what has changed in the latest version of the language.
- zmmmmm 14y agoThanks - that's really interesting to hear. It sounds like your use predated 2.0, at which time I would certainly have said the same thing. However static compilation (a feature of 2.0) has definitely changed my feeling about it - you're getting compile time type checking and near-Java speeds, but all the highly expressive Groovy syntax still works.
- vorg 14y ago> you're getting compile time type checking and near-Java speeds The static compilation added in Groovy 2 is much faster than dynamically-compiled code but is still buggy e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14774709/groovy-2-1-0-wei.. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14774709/groovy-2-1-0-wei.... It was written by one developer, and first shipped in Grails only 2 months ago, which doesn't even seem to use the static compilation features (correct me if I'm wrong). Let the Groovy/Grails developers eat their own dogfood first before recommending Groovy's static compilation to others.