There are several packages out there that help in automating the task of writing bindings between C\C++ and other languages.
In my case, I'd like to bind Python, some options for such packages are: SWIG, Boost.Python and Robin.
It seems that the straight forward process is to use these packages to create C\C++ linkable libraries (with mostly static functions) and have the higher language be extended using them.
However, my situation is that I already have a developed working system in C++ therefore plan to embed Python into it so that future development will be in Python.
It's not clear to me how, and if at all possible, to use these packages in helping to extend embedded Python in such a way that the Python code would be able to interact with the various Singleton instances already running in the system, and instantiate C++ classes and interact with them.
What I'm looking for is an insight regarding the design best fitted for this situation.
Boost.python lets you do a lot of those things right out of the box, especially if you use smart pointers. You can even inherit from C++ classes in Python, then pass instances of those back to your C++ code and have everything still work. My favorite resource on how to do various stuff is this (especially check out the "How To" section): http://wiki.python.org/moin/boost.python/ .
Boost.python is especially good if you're using smart pointers or intrusive pointers, as those translate transparently into PyObject reference counting. Also, it's very good at making factory functions look like Python constructors, which makes for very clean Python APIs.
If you're not using smart pointers, it's still possible to do all the things you want, but you have to mess with various return and lifetime policies, which can give you a headache.
To make it short: There is the modern alternative pybind11.
Long version: I also had to embed python. The C++ Python interface is small so I decided to use the C Api. That turned out to be a nightmare. Exposing classes lets you write tons of complicated boilerplate code. Boost::Python greatly avoids this by using readable interface definitions. However I found that boost lacks a sophisticated documentation and dor some things you still have to call the Python api. Further their build system seems to give people troubles. I cant tell since i use packages provided by the system. Finally I tried the boost python fork pybind11 and have to say that it is really convenient and fixes some shortcomings of boost like the necessity of the use of the Python Api, ability to use lambdas, the lack of an easy comprehensible documentation and automatic exception translation. Further it is header only and does not pull the huge boost dependency on deployment, so I can definitively recommend it.
I just started using clojure today (however , I have used Java a lot and know of functional paradigms) and I was wondering if it was a good idea to build a clojure app with a reasonable complex interface (dragging, dropping, panning, zooming,...) using Swing?
I can imagine that a lot of the normal swing logics (especially concerning OO) has to be bypassed one way or the other..
I asume that all is possible , but is it possible in a way that justifyable?
I mean wouldn't it be like hitting a nail with a screwdriver in stead of with a hammer?
Has anyone here have experience in building GUI's with Clojure (and of Course : is Swing the ideal candidate for that?)
Thanks !
I've found it relatively easy to use Swing to build decent user interfaces in Clojure. You have a couple of options about how to do it however:
Write the code pretty much as you would in Java, just using the Java interop from Clojure to call the relevant Swing APIs. This article does a good job of explaining how, with a bit of macro magic as well to make your life easier.
Use a Clojure GUI wrapper for Swing, e.g. seesaw or clj-swing. My take is that these tools have the potential to help you write some really neat GUI code in idiomatic Clojure
One really cool feature of Clojure's software transactional memory subsystem is that it allows you to set watches on variables: whenever the variable is changed (by anything), your callback gets executed. This lends itself to a powerful sort of GUI programming where the GUI updates itself automagically based on the state of your variables.
A short but non-trivial Swing GUI example is described in detail at http://www.paullegato.com/blog/swing-clojure-gui-black-scholes/ .
Since others are mentioning swing related answers, I'll ask you one question: Is Swing a requirement. Although writing Swing code in clojure is more pleasant then in Java, it is still Swing, with all its verbosity and annoyances, especially in complex application with hard set requirements.
Have you considered web UI, where Clojure fits much more natural? Or SWT or QT Jambi, which also can be made to work using Clojure.
This question already has answers here:
What is the difference between a framework and a library? [closed]
(22 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
What is the difference between a Framework, a Toolkit and a Library?
The most important difference, and in fact the defining difference between a library and a framework is Inversion of Control.
What does this mean? Well, it means that when you call a library, you are in control. But with a framework, the control is inverted: the framework calls you. (This is called the Hollywood Principle: Don't call Us, We'll call You.) This is pretty much the definition of a framework. If it doesn't have Inversion of Control, it's not a framework. (I'm looking at you, .NET!)
Basically, all the control flow is already in the framework, and there's just a bunch of predefined white spots that you can fill out with your code.
A library on the other hand is a collection of functionality that you can call.
I don't know if the term toolkit is really well defined. Just the word "kit" seems to suggest some kind of modularity, i.e. a set of independent libraries that you can pick and choose from. What, then, makes a toolkit different from just a bunch of independent libraries? Integration: if you just have a bunch of independent libraries, there is no guarantee that they will work well together, whereas the libraries in a toolkit have been designed to work well together – you just don't have to use all of them.
But that's really just my interpretation of the term. Unlike library and framework, which are well-defined, I don't think that there is a widely accepted definition of toolkit.
Martin Fowler discusses the difference between a library and a framework in his article on Inversion of Control:
Inversion of Control is a key part of
what makes a framework different to a
library. A library is essentially a
set of functions that you can call,
these days usually organized into
classes. Each call does some work and
returns control to the client.
A framework embodies some abstract
design, with more behavior built in.
In order to use it you need to insert
your behavior into various places in
the framework either by subclassing or
by plugging in your own classes. The
framework's code then calls your code
at these points.
To summarize: your code calls a library but a framework calls your code.
Diagram
If you are a more visual learner, here is a diagram that makes it clearer:
(Credits: http://tom.lokhorst.eu/2010/09/why-libraries-are-better-than-frameworks)
The answer provided by Barrass is probably the most complete. However, the explanation could easily be stated more clearly. Most people miss the fact that these are all nested concepts. So let me lay it out for you.
When writing code:
eventually you discover sections of code that you're repeating in your program, so you refactor those into Functions/Methods.
eventually, after having written a few programs, you find yourself copying functions you already made into new programs. To save yourself time you bundle those functions into Libraries.
eventually you find yourself creating the same kind of user interfaces every time you make use of certain libraries. So you refactor your work and create a Toolkit that allows you to create your UIs more easily from generic method calls.
eventually, you've written so many apps that use the same toolkits and libraries that you create a Framework that has a generic version of this boilerplate code already provided so all you need to do is design the look of the UI and handle the events that result from user interaction.
Generally speaking, this completely explains the differences between the terms.
Introduction
There are various terms relating to collections of related code, which have both historical (pre-1994/5 for the purposes of this answer) and current implications, and the reader should be aware of both, particularly when reading classic texts on computing/programming from the historic era.
Library
Both historically, and currently, a library is a collection of code relating to a specific task, or set of closely related tasks which operate at roughly the same level of abstraction. It generally lacks any purpose or intent of its own, and is intended to be used by (consumed) and integrated with client code to assist client code in executing its tasks.
Toolkit
Historically, a toolkit is a more focused library, with a defined and specific purpose. Currently, this term has fallen out of favour, and is used almost exclusively (to this author's knowledge) for graphical widgets, and GUI components in the current era. A toolkit will most often operate at a higher layer of abstraction than a library, and will often consume and use libraries itself. Unlike libraries, toolkit code will often be used to execute the task of the client code, such as building a window, resizing a window, etc. The lower levels of abstraction within a toolkit are either fixed, or can themselves be operated on by client code in a proscribed manner. (Think Window style, which can either be fixed, or which could be altered in advance by client code.)
Framework
Historically, a framework was a suite of inter-related libraries and modules which were separated into either 'General' or 'Specific' categories. General frameworks were intended to offer a comprehensive and integrated platform for building applications by offering general functionality, such as cross platform memory management, multi-threading abstractions, dynamic structures (and generic structures in general). Historical general frameworks (Without dependency injection, see below) have almost universally been superseded by polymorphic templated (parameterised) packaged language offerings in OO languages, such as the STL for C++, or in packaged libraries for non-OO languages (guaranteed Solaris C headers). General frameworks operated at differing layers of abstraction, but universally low level, and like libraries relied on the client code carrying out it's specific tasks with their assistance.
'Specific' frameworks were historically developed for single (but often sprawling) tasks, such as "Command and Control" systems for industrial systems, and early networking stacks, and operated at a high level of abstraction and like toolkits were used to carry out execution of the client codes tasks.
Currently, the definition of a framework has become more focused and taken on the "Inversion of Control" principle as mentioned elsewhere as a guiding principle, so program flow, as well as execution is carried out by the framework. Frameworks are still however targeted either towards a specific output; an application for a specific OS for example (MFC for MS Windows for example), or for more general purpose work (Spring framework for example).
SDK: "Software Development Kit"
An SDK is a collection of tools to assist the programmer to create and deploy code/content which is very specifically targeted to either run on a very particular platform or in a very particular manner. An SDK can consist of simply a set of libraries which must be used in a specific way only by the client code and which can be compiled as normal, up to a set of binary tools which create or adapt binary assets to produce its (the SDK's) output.
Engine
An Engine (In code collection terms) is a binary which will run bespoke content or process input data in some way. Game and Graphics engines are perhaps the most prevalent users of this term, and are almost universally used with an SDK to target the engine itself, such as the UDK (Unreal Development Kit) but other engines also exist, such as Search engines and RDBMS engines.
An engine will often, but not always, allow only a few of its internals to be accessible to its clients. Most often to either target a different architecture, change the presentation of the output of the engine, or for tuning purposes. Open Source Engines are by definition open to clients to change and alter as required, and some propriety engines are fixed completely. The most often used engines in the world however, are almost certainly JavaScript Engines. Embedded into every browser everywhere, there are a whole host of JavaScript engines which will take JavaScript as an input, process it, and then output to render.
API: "Application Programming Interface"
The final term I am answering is a personal bugbear of mine: API, was historically used to describe the external interface of an application or environment which, itself was capable of running independently, or at least of carrying out its tasks without any necessary client intervention after initial execution. Applications such as Databases, Word Processors and Windows systems would expose a fixed set of internal hooks or objects to the external interface which a client could then call/modify/use, etc to carry out capabilities which the original application could carry out. API's varied between how much functionality was available through the API, and also, how much of the core application was (re)used by the client code. (For example, a word processing API may require the full application to be background loaded when each instance of the client code runs, or perhaps just one of its linked libraries; whereas a running windowing system would create internal objects to be managed by itself and pass back handles to the client code to be utilised instead.
Currently, the term API has a much broader range, and is often used to describe almost every other term within this answer. Indeed, the most common definition applied to this term is that an API offers up a contracted external interface to another piece of software (Client code to the API). In practice this means that an API is language dependent, and has a concrete implementation which is provided by one of the above code collections, such as a library, toolkit, or framework.
To look at a specific area, protocols, for example, an API is different to a protocol which is a more generic term representing a set of rules, however an individual implementation of a specific protocol/protocol suite that exposes an external interface to other software would most often be called an API.
Remark
As noted above, historic and current definitions of the above terms have shifted, and this can be seen to be down to advances in scientific understanding of the underlying computing principles and paradigms, and also down to the emergence of particular patterns of software. In particular, the GUI and Windowing systems of the early nineties helped to define many of these terms, but since the effective hybridisation of OS Kernel and Windowing system for mass consumer operating systems (bar perhaps Linux), and the mass adoption of dependency injection/inversion of control as a mechanism to consume libraries and frameworks, these terms have had to change their respective meanings.
P.S. (A year later)
After thinking carefully about this subject for over a year I reject the IoC principle as the defining difference between a framework and a library. There ARE a large number of popular authors who say that it is, but there are an almost equal number of people who say that it isn't. There are simply too many 'Frameworks' out there which DO NOT use IoC to say that it is the defining principle. A search for embedded or micro controller frameworks reveals a whole plethora which do NOT use IoC and I now believe that the .NET language and CLR is an acceptable descendant of the "general" framework. To say that IoC is the defining characteristic is simply too rigid for me to accept I'm afraid, and rejects out of hand anything putting itself forward as a framework which matches the historical representation as mentioned above.
For details of non-IoC frameworks, see, as mentioned above, many embedded and micro frameworks, as well as any historical framework in a language that does not provide callback through the language (OK. Callbacks can be hacked for any device with a modern register system, but not by the average programmer), and obviously, the .NET framework.
A library is simply a collection of methods/functions wrapped up into a package that can be imported into a code project and re-used.
A framework is a robust library or collection of libraries that provides a "foundation" for your code. A framework follows the Inversion of Control pattern. For example, the .NET framework is a large collection of cohesive libraries in which you build your application on top of. You can argue there isn't a big difference between a framework and a library, but when people say "framework" it typically implies a larger, more robust suite of libraries which will play an integral part of an application.
I think of a toolkit the same way I think of an SDK. It comes with documentation, examples, libraries, wrappers, etc. Again, you can say this is the same as a framework and you would probably be right to do so.
They can almost all be used interchangeably.
very, very similar, a framework is usually a bit more developed and complete then a library, and a toolkit can simply be a collection of similar librarys and frameworks.
a really good question that is maybe even the slightest bit subjective in nature, but I believe that is about the best answer I could give.
Library
I think it's unanimous that a library is code already coded that you can use so as not to have to code it again. The code must be organized in a way that allows you to look up the functionality you want and use it from your own code.
Most programming languages come with standard libraries, especially some code that implements some kind of collection. This is always for the convenience that you don't have to code these things yourself. Similarly, most programming languages have construct to allow you to look up functionality from libraries, with things like dynamic linking, namespaces, etc.
So code that finds itself often needed to be re-used is great code to be put inside a library.
Toolkit
A set of tools used for a particular purpose. This is unanimous. The question is, what is considered a tool and what isn't. I'd say there's no fixed definition, it depends on the context of the thing calling itself a toolkit. Example of tools could be libraries, widgets, scripts, programs, editors, documentation, servers, debuggers, etc.
Another thing to note is the "particular purpose". This is always true, but the scope of the purpose can easily change based on who made the toolkit. So it can easily be a programmer's toolkit, or it can be a string parsing toolkit. One is so broad, it could have tool touching everything programming related, while the other is more precise.
SDKs are generally toolkits, in that they try and bundle a set of tools (often of multiple kind) into a single package.
I think the common thread is that a tool does something for you, either completely, or it helps you do it. And a toolkit is simply a set of tools which all perform or help you perform a particular set of activities.
Framework
Frameworks aren't quite as unanimously defined. It seems to be a bit of a blanket term for anything that can frame your code. Which would mean: any structure that underlies or supports your code.
This implies that you build your code against a framework, whereas you build a library against your code.
But, it seems that sometimes the word framework is used in the same sense as toolkit or even library. The .Net Framework is mostly a toolkit, because it's composed of the FCL which is a library, and the CLR, which is a virtual machine. So you would consider it a toolkit to C# development on Windows. Mono being a toolkit for C# development on Linux. Yet they called it a framework. It makes sense to think of it this way too, since it kinds of frame your code, but a frame should more support and hold things together, then do any kind of work, so my opinion is this is not the way you should use the word.
And I think the industry is trying to move into having framework mean an already written program with missing pieces that you must provide or customize. Which I think is a good thing, since toolkit and library are great precise terms for other usages of "framework".
Framework: installed on you machine and allowing you to interact with it. without the framework you can't send programming commands to your machine
Library: aims to solve a certain problem (or several problems related to the same category)
Toolkit: a collection of many pieces of code that can solve multiple problems on multiple issues (just like a toolbox)
It's a little bit subjective I think. The toolkit is the easiest. It's just a bunch of methods, classes that can be use.
The library vs the framework question I make difference by the way to use them. I read somewhere the perfect answer a long time ago. The framework calls your code, but on the other hand your code calls the library.
In relation with the correct answer from Mittag:
a simple example. Let's say you implement the ISerializable interface (.Net) in one of your classes. You make use of the framework qualities of .Net then, rather than it's library qualities. You fill in the "white spots" (as mittag said) and you have the skeleton completed. You must know in advance how the framework is going to "react" with your code. Actually .net IS a framework, and here is where i disagree with the view of Mittag.
The full, complete answer to your question is given very lucidly in Chapter 19 (the whole chapter devoted to just this theme) of this book, which is a very good book by the way (not at all "just for Smalltalk").
Others have noted that .net may be both a framework and a library and a toolkit depending on which part you use but perhaps an example helps. Entity Framework for dealing with databases is a part of .net that does use the inversion of control pattern. You let it know your models it figures out what to do with them. As a programmer it requires you to understand "the mind of the framework", or more realistically the mind of the designer and what they are going to do with your inputs. datareader and related calls, on the other hand, are simply a tool to go get or put data to and from table/view and make it available to you. It would never understand how to take a parent child relationship and translate it from object to relational, you'd use multiple tools to do that. But you would have much more control on how that data was stored, when, transactions, etc.
My first thoughts are Erlang, or Java, but I wanted to know from others experiences.
It's pretty rare that there's a best language for writing any kind of application in the absence of external constraints. The popularity of Java for ESBs seems to be based on the fact that they're coordinating a bunch of other software that's also written in Java. While any language would work, they're often producing and consuming content for and from Java libraries and therefore benefit from using the same libraries in adapters that their clients and servers use.
A language that is not Java but runs on the JVM and interoperates well with Java would have most of Java's advantages for such software. Scala and Clojure come to mind as good options. Erlang does seem like an appropriate choice as well, though it may be tougher to sell to customers.
JavaScript: https://github.com/salboaie/SwarmESB The main innovation is in how easy is to program your functionality. It comes with the "swarm" idea, a variant of mobile code that works very well with JavaScript but could be implemented in Java, Php,etc.
http://servicemix.apache.org/home.html uses Java.
https://open-esb.dev.java.net/ uses Java.
http://www.jboss.org/ uses Java.
http://www.mulesoft.org/display/MULE/Home seems to be Java.
http://wso2.com/products/enterprise-service-bus/ is Java.
So, if you write yours in Java, you'll be in good company with all the others written in Java.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
the question im asking, is it worth to learn a new language like groovy? cause if i learn groovy, it feels like i code in groovy and not java. and how smart is that when i have to be good in java to code desktop applications too in the future. so if i use groovy a lot for web applications, i will just be worse and have to start over to be good in java when i code desktop applications right?
so why don´t I just stick with java and be good at ONE language instead of having to switch between 2 languages and their syntax. Cause it would be so confusing...
Groovy is a nice, scriptable and easier-to-use Java "knockoff" – and I don't mean that derogatively. while Java is a language to be compiled, deployed and (often) run on Enterprise servers where performance matters, Groovy is a language where you can quickly create a program to get something done. Often that something is fairly simple, so it's an hour's or a day's coding effort. Often the code is only run once and then thrown away. Because Java has more boilerplate and formalism in it, you can do this kind of program more quickly and hence more efficiently in Groovy.
However, just to give you some perspective, Groovy is a relative newcomer stomping on the turf of various other, better established scripting languages:
Perl is one of the grandfathers of scripting languages; rarely does a Unix server get installed without Perl on it, and Perl scripts are the lifeblood of many servers. However, Perl is a write-only language that looks like line noise to the uninitiated. There's more than one way to do everything, so styles diverge drastically. Perl coding tends to be a bit messy.
Python is a fresher, cleaner script language than Perl, and is these days preferred by many as a scripting language. It's fun to program in, it gets things done and because it's been around for a few years, lots of people know it. Python is found behind/inside a number of Linux system utilities.
Groovy leaves Perl and Python in the dust when (a) the environment already makes use of a JVM and/or there's a requirement to use existing Java code, including libraries. So far so good. Groovy is not blazingly fast, but faster than Python. Being dynamically typed, it's "fun" and "easy" to program in a way that Java's not.
But then came Scala. Scala is like Java on steroids. It is statically typed so it's not quite as "fun" to program as Groovy, but it has type inference so often you can leave off the types and the compiler can figure them out. Scala works really hard to make the most of types; it does generic types a lot more seamlessly than Java. It dispenses with a lot of Java's boilerplate, so Scala programs are typically about 30% shorter than similar Java programs. Scala runs on the JVM and interfaces pretty well with Java code. It also runs about as quickly as Java, which most of the other languages don't.
Finally in historic order, there's Clojure. Clojure is a Lisp derivative, so it has a programming style very different from languages you'd otherwise know, and it burns through a lot of parentheses! But Clojure runs on the JVM, is very compatible with all the rest of Java, and it's dynamically typed. You can use it as a scripting language or treat it like a compiled language... it's up to you. I find it fun to program in, and the fact that it's an almost pure functional language forces you to think in new ways about programming. It hurts your head at the beginning, but if you survive it's a very worthwhile exercise because you learn some techniques that will become more relevant (I think) in future programming.
In summary, it would probably do you good (put hair on your chest, if I may be so sexist) to learn one or more of these "alternative" / "scripting" languages. You may find them useful. Usually when there's something to be hacked up quickly in my project, I get the job because all my colleagues only know Java, and by the time they finish setting up their class framework I'm already done.
Quote:
so why don´t I just stick with java
and be good at ONE language instead of
having to switch between 2 languages
and their syntax.
This seems like a more general question about learning programming languages than learning a new language (Groovy) which runs on top of the Java Virual Machine.
Here's a question:
Suppose you are learning a foreign language because you want to be fluent in multiple languages so you can converse with many people. You're learning German right now, but you're getting good at it, but you also want to learn Spanish. Would you just suddenly forget German if you start to learn Spanish? If you are indeed worried that you will, what would you do?
If you were going to learn Groovy, but don't want to forget how to write Java, then why not continue to use both languages at the same time?
One of the things about being a programmer is going to be learning to adapt to new technologies as they come along. It's a good thing to be able to learn new languages, as it's going to be a skill that's going to be very useful in a field which is constantly changing.
Why don't you code your desktop apps in groovy too? Just because groovy is the choice of a web framework (grails) doesn't mean that you can't use it for desktop apps.
Indeed, it is great for desktop apps too. It's more a matter of dynamic or static languages...
In my opinion, it is quite good to have for each task the right language at hand. So go ahead and learn groovy - the result will be that you'll miss groovy features when you try to use java again ;-)
I would say in general in this field it's always good to be learning. I try constantly to learn new concepts to add to my toolbox, while getting better at the core things I'm interested in like Java. I recently purchased a book on learning Clojure - another functional language for the JVM.
The downside to learning something without using it every day is that some details don't stick in your head. That said, I'm glad I spent some time with Clojure; the important stuff stuck and I know I can quickly look up the details if and when I need to. You may want to take a similar approach to Groovy.
The Java platform is slowly starting to change direction to one where the JVM is targeted by multiple source languages (a trick .net has been showing off since day 1, but it's taking Java a while to catch up there). The Java7 classfile format is even adding a new instruction to make these dynamic languages work faster.
If you want to keep yourself current, then learning Groovy is a good way to do it, without abandoning all your investment in the Java platform.
Furthermore, Groovy (and Grails) is now maintained by SpringSource, so its popularity is only going to increase.
Going from java to groovy isn't a lot of work. No where near what would be needed to move to a less Javaish language like clojure.
I really like groovy for one-off apps and for scripting existing java code. I've used it to parse data from REST calls and feed the data to a JMS queue. I've used it to create scrambled test data for a partner from our production data. For stuff like that it is amazing.
If the goal is to learn a dynamic language to add to the toolbox, Python and Ruby are both good choices. They run on the JVM and have native versions. Both are well supported on a large number of platforms.
If the goal is to learn an alternative JVM language, groovy is an excellent choice. Both Scala and Clojure would also be good choices.
I used to stick to the "learn a new language every year rule" from The Pragmatic Programmer, but that was before I had kids. Now I learn a new building toy every six months.
First of all I'm this is a highly subjective question.
In my humble opinion it is worth learning a new language especially if it varies in paradigms (as is the case with groovy). I'm fairly young myself so for me learning a new language is not a much of hassle but the way I see it if you like the language, you estimate that coding in language X will be profitable you should learn it.
It won't hurt your resume.
It won't make your head hurt (much).
The only problem is, will you use it. You need to use a language to become good at it. If you are going to learn it now and never use it tomorrow it probably ain't worth learning it.
Learning something new does not take away something you already know. You may be a bit rusty when you get back into Java, but it'll come back real quick.
Also--
I'm not a Java guy, but I believe Groovy targets the JVM. If this is the case, then programming in Groovy will make you a better Java programmer, because you'll still be targeting the same framework as Java (the language) so you'll still continue to gain experience with the Java libraries. Knowing the available libraries is what really matters, not how well you know every minute detail of a particular language.
I find that by learning new languages, I always end up learning new ways to think about problems. Each language guides you into solving problems in the way most easily expressed by the language. Learning new languages only makes you stronger all around because you learn new ways to solve problems.
You might have to re-orient yourself with the libraries after a long time away from a language, but even then it's not a huge ordeal - just more frequent google searches, etc.
The benefits, however, are worth it. I recently did some functional programming for the first time and it really taught me a lot of different ways to think about certain situations. I find myself now using some of C#'s functional aspects and it makes my code a lot cleaner in some cases. The bottom line is; if your going to do this for a living you are going to want to learn more than one language, have you ever met a mechanic that only knew one make and model of car?
It's always good to learn a new language to be a better programmer. Groovy is a natural choice for java programmer - easy to learn and you can still use your all java knowlege.
Groovy is a dynamic language, after try to learn any functional language (like Scala). With this experience you will see java from different perspecitve. Some task that was painful in Java will be trivial in Groovy/Scala.
you can program desktop aplication with Griffon whose language of choice is Groovy, give it a try
If you are looking for online help, check this websites:
for Groovy
for Grails