Originally posted by Jim Knowlton:
I know it's been said often that Groovy is not a replacement for Java...but why not? If it uses the same JVM, compiles to the same bytecode, and is easier, more concise and more fun to code in, why the heck WOULDN'T it eventually replace Java? What am I missing?
Originally posted by pino astarita:
ok but is the same if i precompile the groovy code ?
Originally posted by Prad Dip:
Groovy uses reflection under the hood thereby slowing down the performance.
Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
Um, not really. Groovy uses reflection but so does nearly every non-groovy java based framework, API, library etc. Groovy is slower than Java for much more important reasons. Important because these are the things that make Groovy groovy baby.
Originally posted by Marc Peabody:
Do you know of any examples where Grooviness is achieved by means other than reflection or places where something in Groovy is slow for a reason other than reflection?
My understanding is that Groovy is extremely reflection intensive. Recent versions hide the reflection garbage from stack traces but the reflection is still there.
Originally posted by Matthew Taylor:
... Nothing is ever primitive, and you can add and remove methods to any class at any time. Groovy deals with this by dynamically searching through the metaClass hierarchy at runtime, attempting to find the signature of the method being called. If it doesn't find one, you'll get the infamous MethodMissingException (which usually means you made a typo).