3 ms·

What about grails? It seems to me that being on the JVM would make that a very attractive choice. I'm strongly considering the grails+groovy / Scala combo fo

by zmimon 17y ago

What about grails? It seems to me that being on the JVM would make that a very attractive choice. I'm strongly considering the grails+groovy / Scala combo for my next project. I'm just waiting for Scala 2.8 to finalize since I need it for it's full annotation support.

icey 17y ago
From my limited experience with grails, the documentation was really lacking, especially when compared to Rails and Django. Not to mention the fact that the guy who co-invented Groovy is now a Scala advocate.
- zmimon 17y ago
  > Not to mention the fact that the guy who co-invented Groovy is now a Scala advocate. This seems to have been turned into a giant piece of FUD against groovy which puzzles me. He didn't say anything bad about Groovy. He simply said that had Scala already existed, he would not have invented Groovy. Like saying, if I had a Lamborghini I might not bother buying a Porsche. I don't see why all of a sudden people think it means Groovy is bad any more than it means a Porsche would be bad. It also means that you'd be unhappy with JRuby or Ruby itself for that matter since all the reasons he gave for liking Scala were about it's static typing and other features Ruby doesn't have. Or of course, perhaps you just enjoy indulging in language FUD and I'm feeding a troll. Re: documentation - I think you're probably right that Rails is better, but I think both are above the necessary threshold that it's not a problem either way.
  - icey 17y ago
    Sorry, I certainly didn't intend to spread FUD; I was just stating my opinion which, as I mentioned, is limited. But if a language designer tells me "hey, if item B had existed when I created item A; I wouldn't have needed to create item A", that sounds like an improvement. I don't really care for Groovy in either direction (it's not bad but it ain't great); but I fail to see how mentioning my opinion is trolling.
  - shpxnvz 17y ago
    He simply said that had Scala already existed... Actually, Scala did already exist when Groovy was created. What Strachan really said is this: "I can honestly say if someone had shown me the Programming in Scala book by by Martin Odersky, Lex Spoon & Bill Venners back in 2003 I'd probably have never created Groovy." - http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/04/scala-as-long-term-replacement-for.html http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/04/scala-as-long-term-repl... That said, I still think Groovy and Grails are a potent combination for increasing productivity in traditional Java shops.

by zmimon 17y ago

icey 17y ago

From my limited experience with grails, the documentation was really lacking, especially when compared to Rails and Django. Not to mention the fact that the guy who co-invented Groovy is now a Scala advocate.

zmimon 17y ago
> Not to mention the fact that the guy who co-invented Groovy is now a Scala advocate. This seems to have been turned into a giant piece of FUD against groovy which puzzles me. He didn't say anything bad about Groovy. He simply said that had Scala already existed, he would not have invented Groovy. Like saying, if I had a Lamborghini I might not bother buying a Porsche. I don't see why all of a sudden people think it means Groovy is bad any more than it means a Porsche would be bad. It also means that you'd be unhappy with JRuby or Ruby itself for that matter since all the reasons he gave for liking Scala were about it's static typing and other features Ruby doesn't have. Or of course, perhaps you just enjoy indulging in language FUD and I'm feeding a troll. Re: documentation - I think you're probably right that Rails is better, but I think both are above the necessary threshold that it's not a problem either way.
- icey 17y ago
  Sorry, I certainly didn't intend to spread FUD; I was just stating my opinion which, as I mentioned, is limited. But if a language designer tells me "hey, if item B had existed when I created item A; I wouldn't have needed to create item A", that sounds like an improvement. I don't really care for Groovy in either direction (it's not bad but it ain't great); but I fail to see how mentioning my opinion is trolling.
- shpxnvz 17y ago
  He simply said that had Scala already existed... Actually, Scala did already exist when Groovy was created. What Strachan really said is this: "I can honestly say if someone had shown me the Programming in Scala book by by Martin Odersky, Lex Spoon & Bill Venners back in 2003 I'd probably have never created Groovy." - http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/04/scala-as-long-term-replacement-for.html http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/04/scala-as-long-term-repl... That said, I still think Groovy and Grails are a potent combination for increasing productivity in traditional Java shops.