Comments on: 10 Common Misconceptions about Grails

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:39:29 +0000

Never forget: grails install-templates
Live in scaffolding as long as possible!

By: Marc Palmer » Blog Archive » My JAX London 2010 talk now online in video form

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:36:01 +0000

[...] People interested in making the case for Grails may be interested in an older post of mine that I’d completely forgotten about – “10 common misconceptions about Grails”. [...]

By: Marc Palmer

Marc Palmer — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:06:19 +0000

Well women will get as much pleasure from Grails as men, perhaps more. I fully expect spam email along these lines soon, it is only a matter of time.

By: Russel Winder

Russel Winder — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:14:39 +0000

10 implies that there can be no heterosexual women Grails developers?

Aren’t there laws against that sort of discrimination?

By: Marc Palmer

Marc Palmer — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:56:59 +0000

Yrui – Groovy is the perfect language for Grails, and in fact Grails almost certainly could not exist with out it. As has been mentioned before it -might- be possible to use Ruby with Grails, but even that may be tricky.

Grails is based on the notion of completely dynamic languages, and as such Groovy’s dynamic typing, builders (DSLs) and closures are a vital part.

What’s more, it is vital that it is as close to Java as possible in syntax. This smoothes the migration path.

Performance is and will continue to improve.

By: Yuri

Yuri — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:52:17 +0000

Grails is a great framework! I have been playing with it for the last several weeks and I must say that I like every side of it, apart from using Groovy as the scripting language. The idea to use a Java syntax language is great, but for me Groovy has been a disappointment so far. May be Nice would have been a better choice. Groovy has many good features, but it is a mess of a language and its performance sucks.

About point 3 – the benchmarks I’ve seen put Groovy as the slowest JVM language, so from users’ point of view it is as good as interpreted regardless of whether it compiles to byte code or not.

A misconception that should be added with respect to Groovy is: “Groovy compiles to static invocation byte code, especially in the cases when it makes all the sense to.” I must say that I fell for that misconception from the description on Groovy’s website.

By: Nando

Nando — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:00:38 +0000

Great points. I must say that I’m very happy with Grails so far, I created a Grails application that is now running in my company intranet. It works really well and development is fun. I looked into RoR at first, but I didn’t want to learn Ruby, so doing a little more research found about Grails… it was a no brainer for a Java developer like me!!!

By: Marc Palmer

Marc Palmer — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:37:47 +0000

Indeed, it is NOT interpreted like Ruby or other scripting languages.

By: jamesl

jamesl — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:08:19 +0000

Marc,

You are right, the java language (and groovy in general use) is not interpreted at the source code level. However, the bytecode that the compile produces is not executed directly by the computer, but indirectly by a program, the Java Virtual Machine. So Stephan is also right, byte code is interpreted.

Of course it is much faster to interpret byte code than the higher level syntax of Java or Groovy.

Rgs, James.

By: Marc Palmer

Marc Palmer — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:36:46 +0000

Stephan – I don’t get your point? Java is not interpreted. It runs in a VM but that is not the same as interpreting where the source code is parsed directly when executing.