Re: Static typing question

 Hi, Christopher,

Spock/Geb are my go-to for testing. I actually used spock to integration
test Python services. But still I think they can exist within a typed
universe.

For the REST thing, mapping JSON to a Dict[str, Any] in Python does what
you say too and mypy is happy. For Groovy I did something similar.

Can you give me an example for (1)?

What I find difficult is the metaclass where you can intercept calls (non
existing) and handle them.

This is not reflected in an interface and it is definitely not
self-documenting. An example is here

Object.class.metaClass.explode{-> println "Boom! ${delegate} Exploded!"}
>
>
so now String objects gain explosive powers. But it is not obvious if there
is no documentation. This is a non-discoverable feature.

But the idea here is that this is a ExplosionMixin<T>, implements Mixin<T>
so instead of writing

"SomeString".explode();
>
>
you can write something like

mix("SomeString",  ExplosionMixin).explode() or ExplosionMixin.mix(
> "SomeString").explode()


and have self-documentation and auto-completion.



On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 8:57 PM Christopher Smith <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I typically use Groovy in its static mode, and the single biggest value to
> me is the AST-transformation system. However, there are cases where I find
> dynamic mode very useful.
>
> 1. Methods that handle processing for particular subtypes of a base type.
> I could do something like a class-based map with, and I do in cases where I
> need pluggability, but for the case of "I have these 4 types of incoming
> message and need to convert them to a target format", using dynamic
> dispatch on a top-level method results in much clearer code than a giant
> switch or hand-written reflection.
>
> 2. Quick-and-dirty processing of data structures. REST calls usually
> return JSON these days, and if I know that I just to pull some simple data
> out of a nested structure, it's much easier to use dynamic mode against a
> Map than to try to write a bunch of mapping classes.
>
> 3. Spock and Geb. I have managed to convince consulting clients that stick
> to plain Java only for the business code to adopt Spock for testing because
> it's so powerful and clear. Spock is the Groovy equivalent of an IOCCC
> winner, and it showcases the dramatic lengths you can (and nearly all of us
> shouldn't) go to.
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 12:17 PM Agile Developer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was a  4 years user of Grails/Groovy (last year mostly Python). With
>> the general trend of people moving to static languages, is there any reason
>> that Groovy needs to stay dynamic?
>>
>> I see Python having the mypy approach, I see gradle moving to Kotlin and
>> FE mostly on Typescript.
>>
>> I understand that the @CompileStatic is the supported method, but having
>> true static typing (with the Script-Like enhancements other Languages
>> added, would be beneficial).
>>
>> Is there still a reason to keep it dynamic? What is the benefit?
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Vasileios Anagnostopoulos (MSc,PhD)
>> Researcher/Developer
>>
>

-- 
Dr. Vasileios Anagnostopoulos (MSc,PhD)
Researcher/Developer