:)) The mighty O'Reilly platform java.net is running on (perl I guess, dynamic language eh? agile, whatever ...) should provide some editing and spellcheking facilities for people like me that are not natural born english speakers and some times make spelling or other types of mistakes. Anyway, the last line should be: I hope that some marketing machine will kick in for groovy and grails in after 1.0 releases. Finger crossed. :)

Groovy unites the bad traits of Java and scripting languages: o long startup times because auf VM startup times, so you cannot use Groovy for batch programming as perl replacement o strange, non-Java syntax What I'd need were on the contrary the syntax of Java with the short startup time of sh or perl.

Groovy unites the bad traits of Java and scripting languages: o long startup times because auf VM startup times, so you cannot use Groovy for batch programming as perl replacement o strange, non-Java syntax What I'd need were on the contrary the syntax of Java with the short startup time of sh or perl.

I think what's missing is IDE support. If you develop using notepad, Emacs or similar, Groovy can be much more productive than Java, but if you're addicted to Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ or similar, working with Java will probably be more productive.

I would rather like to to see Groovy features (lists, maps, closures, operator overloading) to be added to regular Java. Why not?

I've found Groovy to be a breath of fresh air in the Java ecosystem. Originally drawn to it via Grails, another huge blast of fresh air in the webapp space, I've found Groovy to be fun to program, functional, and sufficiently Java-like and of course Java-friendly that it satisfies my need to do Java. While not necessarily suited for every job, Groovy lets you relive some of the 'Wow, that's very cool' feeling you had when you first learned a bit of Perl back in the mid 90s. And I mean that in the best possible sense (there is one). Groovy gives back some of the freedoms you occasionally miss in certain circumstances while not completely bailing on types.

I'm in the same boat as ilazarte. I picked 'No, but I'd like to' because it's one of those things I'd like to check out, but haven't had the time as of yet. Who knows, once I get to play with it I might just love it and use it all the time, or hate it and never touch it again.

I was forced to choose! My real selection would've been, "it's on the long list of languages to mess around with when i have time." It seems like a good summary of modern programming, but I really enjoy working with Java. Rarely do I look at it and go "wow, I just really need to get out of this and into a scripting layer." I think I've only done that with some String parsing, but even then I created some cool wrappers that did my work for me so...