Ed Burnette: "With its uncluttered design, mature code base, small size, well defined semantics, dynamic language features, and JSR 274, BeanShell looks way groovier than Groovy."
My sentiments exactly.
: My response to Graeme
(originally posted in his comments):
You're kidding yourself if you think there's a fundamental difference between BeanShell and Groovy. They solve the same problems. Labeling one "scripting" and the other "dynamic" (dynamically typed?) doesn't change the fact that they really only differ in what syntax sugar they support.
BeanShell supports scripting language like functions (i.e. working with files, etc.), but that's a feature, not a definition of the framework. Any other differences boil down to implementation details.
I personally prefer BeanShell's conservative evolution approach to Groovy's attempt to include everything including the kitchen sink. I seriously doubt Groovy's long term viability and ability to evolve and maintain backward compatibility.
The fact that you haven't provided any examples of BeanShell syntax sugar leads me to believe you don't know much about it. If I didn't know better I'd think that BeanShell was little more than a Java interpreter after reading your post.