On 19/02/2011 10:06 PM, Joern Huxhorn wrote:
On 18.02.2011, at 23:08, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Sure. I understand that seeing one's contributions ignored/declined can be frustrating. I am sorry for ignoring/declining the contributions which deserved better.
For a more recent example I asked about switching to Gradle in http://www.mail-archive.com/slf4j-dev@qos.ch/msg00487.html and got no answer yet...
I interpreted this as a "no" but I may be mistaken and it just got lost on the mailinglist...
How about setting up Gradle build for Logback and/or SLF4J? We could leave the Maven2 build in place for a transition period, of course...
I am torn between Grovvy and Scala as replacements for Java. Groovy is easy to learn, adds higher order functions and a whole bunch of other very nice features. However, it is not statically typed which means that Groovy code is much slower than Java (for CPU intensive code). Just as importantly, the Groovy compiler skips type checking which leaves you to discovering errors at runtime. Scala on the other hand is as feature-rich as Groovy but statically typed. Scala's type-inference mechanism is a source of continuous amazement. Given that it is statically typed, Scala generates code which runs as fast as Java. However, Scala is harder to learn than Groovy, at least it was for me. Scala also has extremely serious backwards compatibility issues due to the way traits are folded into code which import them. Both languages are DSL friendly. It is rather easy to write in-language DSLs in Groovy and Scala. In my experience, coding a DSL in Groovy is easier but Scala DSLs are type checked by the compiler which is a big plus (as you get IDE support, e.g. completion, for free). As Scala is only used in tests, we could stop using Scala. (I've written a configuration DSL for logback in Scala. The syntax is similar to what we have in Groovy but the Scala version is type-checked.) Anyway, can you describe what you like in Gradle? -- Ceki