jastrachan | 13 Nov 10:51 2004
Picon

Re: Thinking in Groovy

:)

Hopefully as we tidy things up a bit (we've just had a great 2 day JSR 
conference where heaps of stuff just got fixed), Groovy should be way 
less ambiguous, cleaner, leaner, meaner, faster and more fun - and as a 
result get better documented and have better tests to make more things 
more obvious.

On 13 Nov 2004, at 01:25, Scott Stirling wrote:
> At some point Bruce Eckels will no doubt write this book,  but I think 
> it's fit for my current feelings on Groovy.
>
> How do I think in Groovy? I know how to think in Java, but to think in 
> a new language you have to get to know it. So far, I am thinking in 
> Groovy with Java right there under the covers when I have a doubt. I 
> have a hard time not thinking stuff like: "well, this variable is 
> actually an ArrayList, and even though I don't recall what the heck 
> the Groovy idiom is to get this value, I know I can call this Java 
> method . . ."
>
> I do a lot of that. It's like knowing Latin and trying to use that 
> knowledge to understand French or Italian: "well, I know livre comes 
> from liber, which means 'book' . . ."
>
> Another observation is that learning Groovy involves lots of hunting 
> for examples of how to do X that I could do in Java or Ant but know I 
> could more easily in Grrovy. But often I can't find a good example, so 
> the brain teaser solving mentality kicks in with lots of "what about 
> this? no? How about this? No? Ooh, look at that huge stack trace! 
> This? Nope . . . " and on it goes.
>
> The good thing is *it's fun*. I've had fun with Groovy because it does 
> makes sense and things do fall into place. It's not Java and I don't 
> want it to be. And it's rewarding when I get another piece of the 
> puzzle and get something to work and think "I'm *so* gonna be the 
> first guy on my block to use Groovy at work."
>
> Thanks,
> Scott Stirling
> Framingham, MA
>
>

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


Gmane