From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2009-04-15T03:11:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby vs. Groovy: your perspective

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
> Eleanor McHugh wrote:
>>
>> In Ruby that's easy as Charlie and his confederates have built me a
>> first-class tool to use in JRuby with very few restrictions on the kind of
>> Ruby code it'll support, whilst MRI still gives me support on a host of
>> other platforms thanks to its ANSI-C implementation. For the Groovy folks
>> that could well be impossible.
>
> I tend to agree here. Groovy really is Java with enhancements (lots of
> enhancements, sure), and simply would cease to exist without being on the
> JVM, having JVM's types, libraries, and type system, and without a lot of
> Java's baggage. Groovy is, in a sense, a dynamic-typed Java. That certainly
> gives an easy path for folks used to Java to start moving to dynamic
> langauges. But detaching it from Java would not be easy, if it's possible at
> all.
>
I am amazed that you say that, do you not think it would be easier to
port Groovy to e.g. Ruby than Ruby to Java?
Ok it would be lots and lots of work but surely less than the JRuby
project. Well I have no idea if it will be worth it, but that is not
my question.
To be honest I am not worried about Groovy, but about Clojure, which I
find most interesting.

Cheers
Robert

-- 
Si tu veux construire un bateau ...
Ne rassemble pas des hommes pour aller chercher du bois, préparer des
outils, répartir les tâches, alléger le travail… mais enseigne aux
gens la nostalgie de l’infini de la mer.

If you want to build a ship, don’t herd people together to collect
wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to
long for the endless immensity of the sea.

--
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry