Skip to main content

Groovy types

Java is a statically typed language, which means we have to declare the type of a variable at compile time. Python is dynamically typed. which means that references can never to bound to types at compile time. Groovy on the other hand has optional typing. What this means is Groovy references can be statically typed like in Java, or dynamically typed like in Python.


String staticStr = new String("this is a statically typed String");
staticStr = 8;
println """The type of staticStr is: ${staticStr.class.getName()} """
println """It's value is: $staticStr"""


The output form running the above program is:

String staticStr = new String("this is a statically typed String");
staticStr = 8;
println """The type of staticStr is: ${staticStr.class.getName()} """
println """It's value is: $staticStr"""


As you can see, staticStr remains a string even after it is assigned 8. I will leave it as an exercise to figure out how 8 got assigned to a string type.


//s is not declared to be of any type but holds a String object
def dynamicStr = "this ia a dynamic string"
dynamicStr = 90
println """Type of dynamicStr is ${dynamicStr.class.getName()}"""


The output from running the above code is:

Type of dynamicStr is java.lang.Integer


So, why does Groovy support optional typing? Groovy tries to be feature rich language with support for closures and meta-programming. Both these need Groovy to be dynamically typed. However Groovy also promises compatibility with Java. Hence there are times when we may want it to be statically typed. Groovy takes the unique approach of being an optionally typed language, which allows it to be feature rich and compatible with Java.

I would like to take a little detour here and quote something I read:

"The recent trend is towards dynamically typed languages, which use inference to reduce the amount of code to be written. Java, C# and C++ are "static typed" languages, whereas JavaScript, Ruby, Python and PHP (used by Facebook) use "dynamic typing". In static languages, the programmer must declare each variable's class (such as string, integer, or list) before the program runs; in dynamic typing, it is assessed as the program runs. Fowler says Ruby is between two and five times more productive than Java. "In static languages, there are all these speed bumps. You can just express yourself more rapidly in languages like Ruby and Python, and that gives you an edge. That edge does make a significant productivity difference." - Source: The Guardian

I will not discuss details of static vs. dynamic typing in this blog post, but suffice to say that dynamic typing makes it possible for Groovy to have flexible closures, and metaprogramming. Groovy supports static types to allow inter operation with Java. This is very nice, because not only can a Groovy program take advantage of existing Java libraries, but Java programmers who are not yet fully familiar with Groovy can start Groovy programming with a known paradigm and proceed with closures and metaprogramming as their knowledge of Groovy increases.

Comments

Neal Gafter said…
You say "So, why does Groovy support optional typing? Groovy tries to be feature rich language with support for closures and meta-programming. Both these need Groovy to be dynamically typed." However, many statically typed languages have these features as well. There is no link between these features and dynamic typing.
Parag said…
Hi Neal,

But in a statically typed language we cannot inject methods into an object at runtime and write code that simply expects them to be there when run.

I see what you mean about closures not needing dynamic typing.
Neal Gafter said…
@Parag: Re "But in a statically typed language we cannot inject methods into an object at runtime and write code that simply expects them to be there when run."

Agreed: "monkey patching", an approach to support meta-programming in Groovy, has been shown to scale poorly and is not used in static languages.

Popular posts from this blog

Running your own one person company

Recently there was a post on PuneTech on mom's re-entering the IT work force after a break. Two of the biggest concerns mentioned were : Coping with vast advances (changes) in the IT landscape Balancing work and family responsibilities Since I have been running a one person company for a good amount of time, I suggested that as an option. In this post I will discuss various aspects of running a one person company. Advantages: You have full control of your time. You can choose to spend as much or as little time as you would like. There is also a good chance that you will be able to decide when you want to spend that time. You get to work on something that you enjoy doing. Tremendous work satisfaction. You have the option of working from home. Disadvantages: It can take a little while for the work to get set, so you may not be able to see revenues for some time. It takes a huge amount of discipline to work without a boss, and without deadlines. You will not get the benefits (insuran

Testing Groovy domain classes

If you are trying to test Grails domain class constraints by putting your unit test cases in the 'test/unit' directory, then your tests will fail because the domain objects will not have the 'valdate' method. This can be resolved in two ways: Place the test cases inside test/integration (which will slow things down) Use the method 'mockForConstraintsTests(Trail)' to create mock method in your domain class and continue writing your test cases in 'test/unit' What follows is some example code around this finding. I am working on a Groovy on Grails project for a website to help programmers keep up and refresh their skills. I started with some domain classes and then moved on to write some unit tests. When we create a Grails project using grails create-app , it creates several directories, one of which is a directory called 'test' for holding unit tests. This directory contains two directories, 'unit', and 'integration' for uni

Some thoughts on redesigning education

Some time back I read a blog post on redesigning education. It asked some very good questions. Stuff which I had been thinking of myself. I left my thoughts on the blog, but I would also like to start a conversation around these ideas with those who read this blog as well. I would like to know what other people think of the issue of redesigning (college) education. I have often thought about how college education can be improved. To answer this question, we first have to ask a very basic question. What is the purpose of education? To me, we need education for 3 things: To learn more about the world around us To lead positive constructive lives To earn a good living / fulfill our ambitions I think education has to a large extent evolved to fulfill #3 (with a bias towards earning a comfortable living). The semester system, along with multiple choice tests, and grading, has made our education system into an assembly line. Students are pushed into the assembly line, given classes, admini