[soc88]

This is my impression, too. I think Groovy's "static" features are a reaction to a lot of developers realizing that "statically typed" doesn't necessarily mean that the language has to be as cumbersome and verbose as Java.

Imho, there is just no reason for building/using/preferring a dynamically typed language, except when the language designer lacks the necessary abilities to build a sound and coherent type system.

Scala has none of Groovy's drawbacks, a lot of benefits combined with a clear roadmap -- and most importantly: The determination to not only get something working, but also to get it right.

Meanwhile, the language gets more consistent and polished with every release.

[glaforge]

The static features of Groovy 2.0 are actually a reaction to users demand and wishes.

You can read the article to have a more elaborate explanation of this, but in a nutshell, our users want to be able to type check their code especially when Groovy's used as a kind of "scripted Java" as they expect the same feedback as the java compiler provides. Especially when Groovy is used "à la" Java rather than to rely on its useful dynamic features. And our users are also interested about pure raw speed for computations, or avoid being subject of monkey patching, hence why static compilation matter in some situations.

I don't want to enter into polemical arguments here, as I have nothing against Scala, on the contrary. But your arguments about type systems vs dynamicity or supposed Groovy's drawbacks don't really seem to be factual and backed by any concrete claims or analysis. So I won't comment on that.