There is a lot of talk around about Groovy v. Ruby v. Java, and I reckon a lot of it is missing the point. I like Groovy because it was built from scratch to play great with Java. I can use it now in unit testing (one of its original use cases, and a potential killer app for it IMHO). It is a nonsense to even consider fighting battles with Java, or Ruby - why bother? It is a great tool in our toolbox, use it appropriately. I’m using it for unit testing, I’m using it for scripting within products. It will not replace Java, neither will Ruby. The fundamental advantage of Java over Groovy and Ruby is that it is statically typed, which - amongst other things - enables (note my use of the word “enables”) good tooling. While Ruby is hot right now, I think Groovy is in a different league, its going to be a slow burner, but in the end may burn more brightly and for much longer.
3 Responses to “The pointless Groovy v. Ruby v. Java argument”
- 1 Pingback on Jan 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
In the immortal words of Ed McMahon “YESSSS!”
Don’t you mean: HIYOOOOOOOO!
For me the main issues are speed and productivity. Static typing gives you more speed when making apps like simulations. Productivity I guess both groovy and ruby are better than java though, although again with static typing you get things like better code completion support in an IDE.
So I’m looking forward to trying statically typed languages with type inference, like F3 and maybe fortress: http://edtechdev.blogspot.com/2007/01/f3-new-statically-typed-scripting.html