I work with groovy in my day job, and I have to say that it is the NBL on the JVM. It has:
* ease of adoption from existing Java developers because it's a superset of the java langauge
* the enterprise capability (which the author mistakenly dismissed it for) thanks to groovy++
* finally, if you were to change Java the way the author suggested for Java 8 and 9, then it would end up looking like Groovy anyway. So DRY and just adopt Groovy as the NBL and leave Java to be backwards compatible.
I wish you were wrong about this but I think you're probably right. I'd much rather see a more carefully designed and powerful language like Clojure or Scala succeed but the blubbiness of Groovy will probably win out.
Comments
I work with groovy in my day job, and I have to say that it is the NBL on the JVM. It has:
* ease of adoption from existing Java developers because it's a superset of the java langauge
* the enterprise capability (which the author mistakenly dismissed it for) thanks to groovy++
* finally, if you were to change Java the way the author suggested for Java 8 and 9, then it would end up looking like Groovy anyway. So DRY and just adopt Groovy as the NBL and leave Java to be backwards compatible.
I wish you were wrong about this but I think you're probably right. I'd much rather see a more carefully designed and powerful language like Clojure or Scala succeed but the blubbiness of Groovy will probably win out.