Re: Tentative Roadmap

> Regarding putting features like concurrency to in to additional module
> I have absolutely vice versa suggestion. I think functionality like
> Gant and good concurrency/actors package will not bloat Groovy but
> provide best one shop expirience for Groovy users.
>
> So I suggest to include Gant in to main Groovy distro. Of course, if
> Russel and other Gant developers like the idea.
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2007 12:40 PM, Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@...> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2007 10:25 AM, Alexandru Popescu ☀
> > <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@...> wrote:
> > > Firstly I would like to thank Mr.G and Jochen for setting up such a
> > > detailed roadmap.
> >
> > You're welcome :-)
> >
> > > Now, I would like to add my opinion about it (opinion that might not
> > > match exactly the above plan).
> >
> > At least, it's not in contradiction with the roadmap!
> >
> > > I do consider that the Groovy language has become "enough" feature
> > > rich. IMO, the most important aspects for the future of the language
> > > are now more in terms of usability. I don't think I can come out with
> > > a nice proposal as you did, but my suggestion would be that the work
> > > should focus on the following directions:
> > >
> > > 1/ fixing bugs related to the 1.5 major release. This will probably
> > > result in a couple more minor releases.
> >
> > Agreed, this is what the 1.5.x releases are for.
> >
> > > 2/ focus on the performance. As discussed at GDC this mostly means
> > > rethinking the whole MOP, stabilizing and unifying the MOP, etc. I
> > > would definitely see the whole energy of the Groovy people going this
> > > direction only for the next period.
> >
> > It's going to be a long process I suspect, as various experiments will
> > have to be done, lots of discussions, a nice general proposal of what
> > we really want, etc. So it's something that is going to be done in
> > parallel to the progress we make in 1.x.
> >
> > > Probably the only "new" feature that I see as belonging to "usability"
> > > is the multi-assignment, but this is just a nice to have one, so it
> > > shouldn't focus on it right away (or at least I wouldn't consider it
> > > as a strict goal for the next immediate period).
> >
> > I tried to put certain features at certain milestones, but we can
> > certainly reorder the priorities.
> > I've put multiple assignments early in the roadmap because we had
> > promised them in 1.1/1.5, but as they're certainly not critical, we
> > can postpone them to a latter release, it's not really critical.
> >
> > In the new features, there are things which should be discussed for
> > inclusion or not.
> > For instance, anonymous inner classes, nested classes and co.
> > Initially, in the early days of Groovy, we didn't want to support them
> > because we found them ugly, and closures should be used more to fill
> > in the gap.
> > So, it's perhaps a debate we should have as to whether the Groovy
> > users really want them in the language?
> >
> > Regarding other features, for instance AST Transformations, we can
> > already do that today, but in a more convoluted way (through the
> > Groovy classloader), so it's mainly about making this feature easier
> > to use. And for the concurrency feature, it could even just be an
> > additional module, instead of bloating Groovy core with yet another
> > big feature.
> >
> > > Hope you don't mind expressing my thoughts here,
> >
> > On the contrary, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
> >
> > --
> >
> > Guillaume Laforge
> > Groovy Project Manager
> > G2One, Inc. Vice-President Technology
> > http://www.g2one.com
> >
>