From: Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Date: 2006-11-12T04:11:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Java scripting language poll

David Vallner wrote:
> The apparent popularity of Groovy disturbs me, for fear of overhyping
> and the fact I wish their JSR a speedy death. Then again, I don't give
> much credit to blog polls, especially ones that are instant cues for a
> programming language flamewar. Last time I remember, it was a certain
> Mr. Spolsky that was being accused of trolling for hits by doing more or
> less that.

I expected Groovy to do well; in the past it's been the most "official" 
language (JSR process and all), it's been hyped quite a bit for the past 
couple years, and, well, it has a pretty good name. It's certainly not a 
language I'd ever want to use though, so I think the JRuby thing has 
more potential (of course).

> Wishing no ill fortune to the JRuby folks, I voted for BeanShell on that
> one for rational reasons. The role I see for scripting the JVM is in
> things usually more people on the team and later maintainers will change
> (involved configuration, rules in business rule engines), and making
> those easily understood and modified by people you hire to work on a
> Java app (read: people who know mostly Java) is paramount. (If you
> wouldn't use a scripting language on a part of the app you expect to
> change often, where then?).

Fair enough...and I agree, if Ruby didn't exist I'd probably be using 
Beanshell or Jython or SISC instead. In the end though I hope we can 
really bring all languages up at the same time by better supporting them 
at the VM level. That will help everyone, including those poor pure Java 
devs out there.

> JRuby has its place, but IMO not really in Java development per se -
> more along the lines of doing Ruby development while being able to
> leverage Java-only libraries. If it only delivers that, the project has
> very high value. It's a somewhat subtle distinction, but until now, the
> latter wasn't an itch I needed scratching, so it's also not where my
> vote is going.

I think it may be better to think about JRuby not in terms of Java, but 
in terms of an alternative VM for Ruby. You may not need a VM as 
feature-complete as the JVM. You may not need a VM at all. But if you 
do, and you want things like native, parallel threading, advanced memory 
management and garbage collection, high-speed asynchronous IO, and a 
bazillion libraries, maybe Ruby on the JVM is the right choice. You 
really don't have to touch a line of Java code to get the benefit.

> David Vallner
> (Disclaimer: Anyone proposing anything but Java be used to actually
> implement some library / framework to be consumed by other people from
> Java deserves being handled by the nearest rusty fork. I'm a
> multilanguage purist, keep to each its advantages.)

I don't necessarily agree that Ruby can't be used for such things...but 
I agree it's best targeted at tying such things together.

-- 
Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer
Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com
Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec
headius@headius.com -- charles.nutter@sun.com