[logback-dev] Running the logback project as a commitocracy

[Ralph Goers]

Gradle is a build tool, not a language. Joern was asking about it replacing Maven.  I attended a presentation on Gradle at SpringOne and concluded it wouldn't meet the needs of my organization - it is somewhere between Ant and Maven.  It isn't clear to me why one would want to switch from Maven to Gradle when the build is already working.

Ralph

On Feb 19, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> On 19/02/2011 10:06 PM, Joern Huxhorn wrote:
>> 
>> On 18.02.2011, at 23:08, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>> 
>>> Sure. I understand that seeing one's contributions ignored/declined
>>> can be frustrating. I am sorry for ignoring/declining the
>>> contributions which deserved better.
>>> 
> 
> 
> > For a more recent example I asked about switching to Gradle in
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/slf4j-dev@qos.ch/msg00487.html and got no
> > answer yet...
> >
> > I interpreted  this as a "no"  but I may  be mistaken and it  just got
> > lost on the mailinglist...
> >
> > How about setting up Gradle build for Logback and/or SLF4J? We could
> > leave the Maven2 build in place for a transition period, of course...
> 
> I am torn between Grovvy and Scala as replacements for Java.
> 
> Groovy is easy to learn, adds higher order functions and a whole bunch
> of other very nice features. However, it is not statically typed which
> means that Groovy code is much slower than Java (for CPU intensive
> code). Just as importantly, the Groovy compiler skips type checking
> which leaves you to discovering errors at runtime.
> 
> Scala on the other hand is as feature-rich as Groovy but statically
> typed.  Scala's type-inference mechanism is a source of continuous
> amazement. Given that it is statically typed, Scala generates code
> which runs as fast as Java. However, Scala is harder to learn than
> Groovy, at least it was for me. Scala also has extremely serious
> backwards compatibility issues due to the way traits are folded into
> code which import them.
> 
> Both languages are DSL friendly. It is rather easy to write
> in-language DSLs in Groovy and Scala. In my experience, coding a DSL
> in Groovy is easier but Scala DSLs are type checked by the compiler
> which is a big plus (as you get IDE support, e.g. completion, for
> free).
> 
> As Scala is only used in tests, we could stop using Scala. (I've
> written a configuration DSL for logback in Scala. The syntax is
> similar to what we have in Groovy but the Scala version is
> type-checked.)
> 
> Anyway, can you describe what you like in Gradle?
> 
> --
> Ceki
> _______________________________________________
> logback-dev mailing list
> logback-dev at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev