jastrachan | 18 Feb 11:11 2005

Re: Re: static versus dynamic typing policy

On 18 Feb 2005, at 09:20, Russel Winder wrote:
>> What I'm about to say may be painful but you guys never seem to get 
>> it:
>> Groovy is effectively the laughing stock of the programming community
>> today, the butt of jokes.  Even PHP programmers look down at Groovy - 
>> and
>> they have a right to, because (despite certain flaws) PHP actually is
>> production ready.  You guys are convince you have the coolest language
>> around but in fact you have a bunch of hacks glued together with duct 
>> tape
>> and wire- and, amazingly, the JSR process is actually making it worse.
> Actually, I think Groovy is the laughing stock only of Mike Spille.
> There are a lot of people coming to Groovy and liking it.  Your very
> public campaign to make it appear to the world as though Groovy is a
> joke is perhaps the biggest problem for Groovy.  Why is it that you 
> want
> Groovy to fail?
>> Groovy doesn't have "a long way to go".  It's plain as day that 
>> there's no
>> real interest in making Groovy ever production ready, and because of 
>> that
>> it will just be a footnote in history a few years from now.
> Any project has the people who start it and the people who carry it
> forward.  These are very rarely the same people.  James and Bob started
> Groovy but I doubt that James will be the person who makes it a
> production system.  This is natural and normal.  The question is only
> when is the first alpha ready to be put into production mode.  We are
> not there yet so it is reasonable and right that the "research" people
> do their bit.  When things are ready to move into a "production" mode
> then it would be right for a less research oriented group to take
> control of the project.
> If you were to argue that the team should put some milestones down to
> measure progress then that would be a good point.  To say "there's no
> real interest in making Groovy ever production ready" is to try and
> impose a mind set on the team in an attempt to ensure failure.
> So I repeat:  Why is it that you seem hell bent on trying to make the
> Groovy project into a very public failure?
> I think you owe it to the people who have read your emails and tried to
> answer them to explain the reasons behind your campaign of destruction.

These are great points. Mike wanna come clean? You keep repeatedly 
proclaiming Groovy's death and complaining about pretty much everything 
we're doing; yet you're still here saying the same thing. Why?