Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Static type checking: hybrid mode in Groovy
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:49:38 +0100
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <9ipfu2F5kaU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <61e17074-e229-4303-a549-2389ccf502d3@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ej0LLhtQvy6vWTr6mwbkEgJU/a4GpajQVOGZobVdaz/GcqhGw=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IwB3cf8XfEIQn+SV2QBSFIvtI/Q=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
In-Reply-To: <61e17074-e229-4303-a549-2389ccf502d3@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:10064

On 11/16/2011 09:41 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> Folks,
>
> we recently had this discussion about the benefits of STC: Groovy now
> takes a hybrid approach and allows to use both.  For the interested
> reader:
>
> http://www.jroller.com/melix/entry/groovy_static_type_checker_status
>
> They are trying to have the best of both worlds.

Interesting: the discussion solely seems to revolve around the "better 
syntax" quote and nobody talks about the hybrid type checking approach. 
  It's always fun to see how threads evolve in totally unexpected 
directions. :-)

Kind regards

	robert