4 ms·

GWT for Java to AJAX compilation

9 points by cconstantine 18y ago

food 18y ago
um, you're about 3 years late on this "news"
- jsjenkins168 18y ago
  You were using GWT 3 years ago? Do you work at Google or something? This wouldnt have been a valid claim until very recently, like GWT 1.5 so not really old news. GWT 1.5 compiled javascript is super fast relative to older versions.
cconstantine 18y ago
I was afraid of that... I'm trying to get into web developement; I've been deep in compilers and local apps for too long :(
- msg 18y ago
  I don't think it's bad to want to abstract away the low-levels of client-side JavaScript, but you might want to start with JavaScript first to know what and why you are abstracting away. There's a good introduction in the form of lectures from Douglas Crockford. I watched them recently and they were informative and interesting. http://www.catonmat.net/blog/learning-javascript-programming-language-through-video-lectures http://www.catonmat.net/blog/learning-javascript-programming...
  - cconstantine 18y ago
    Yeah, you're probably right ;) I'll take a look at the learning-javascript-stuffs, thanks
johnyzee 18y ago
GWT is a major game changer which the world has yet to discover. I predict that soonish we'll begin seeing web applications that weren't possible before, and this will force a big shift into GWT or a GWT like web application development paradigm.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  I predict that those web applications that weren't possible before will all use straight JavaScript, and GWT will be relegated to the dustbin of ideas that were too early to change the game.
  - jsjenkins168 18y ago
    I predict as web applications get increasingly complicated, javascript will be viewed as more of a low-level language which will be compiled down to from higher level abstractions. Not because javascript is a bad language, but because browser fragmentation is so bad. It may not just be Java (in the form of GWT), but other languages as well. Google has actually been doing this for a while now, even before GWT. Much of the javascript that is used in their apps is generated via compiler in one form or another.
    - nostrademons 18y ago
      Browser problems really aren't that bad if you use a cross-platform JavaScript library. The core language behaves basically the same in all browsers (except for the trailing-commas issue in IE), it's just the DOM and event-handling models that are a mess.
      - hello_moto 18y ago
        Those "cross-platform" libraries aren't: - Faster - Slimmer - Better compare to GWT.
  - johnyzee 18y ago
    GWT applications ARE straight javascript. It's how you create and maintain those humongous javascript applications that is the question. And GWT is a killer answer.
almost 18y ago
I still don't get it. Why would I want to eschew the fairly okish and dynamic language JavaScript in favor of the big lumbering Java? The other way round I could understand.
- jsjenkins168 18y ago
  Because browsers suck and native javascript behavior is not predictable across platforms. In GWT the browser is abstracted and you dont worry about it. You write AJAX code and it always works. Firefox, IE, iPhone, whatever. Writing the code itself is not where the real time investment is with ambitious ajax projects. Its wasted in browser-related quirks and debugging. Being able save this valuable time and focus on building something cool is worth it in my opinion. Also GWT is just plain faster.
  - almost 18y ago
    Yes, but abstracted away to Java? Ok, I see you have a point and that does seem like a good idea. The choice of language just seems crazy.
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    "Writing the code itself is not where the real time investment is with ambitious ajax projects. Its wasted in browser-related quirks and debugging." That has not been my experience. I've found that the vast majority of my JavaScript development time goes to areas that are hassles in any rich UI programming (I was a Swing and then Netbeans developer before I turned to the web): 1.) Forgetting to call a listener or otherwise update UI state. 2.) Finding that the UI really works better if some faraway component auto-updates its state when you change this menu item, and having to plumb the update through the whole app. 3.) Working out corner cases when the user selects some combination of options that's so crazy you didn't think anyone could possibly choose it. I usually do all my development in Firefox and then set aside a week or so to port to IE, which I know everybody says is a terrible development practice, but it's worked on multiple projects for me. I just memorize all the areas where I'm likely to have problems, and avoid them. I usually find that well ofter 60% of the bugs are trailing commas anyway - the event-handling and DOM differences are taken care of by JQuery, and there really are not that many other core language differences.
tom_rath 18y ago
Why convert the Java app into a browser-based AJAX form when you can launch the application using Java Web Start?
olavk 18y ago
Allow me to plug my own project: http://www.ecmascript4.com/ http://www.ecmascript4.com/ Translates ECMAScript 4 to classic JavaScript. This brings type checking, classes, namespaces etc. to JavaScript, however it is still backwards compatible with classic JavaScript, so you can port gradually and integrate with existing JavaScript libraries. Best of both worlds!

9 points by cconstantine 18y ago

food 18y ago

um, you're about 3 years late on this "news"

jsjenkins168 18y ago
You were using GWT 3 years ago? Do you work at Google or something? This wouldnt have been a valid claim until very recently, like GWT 1.5 so not really old news. GWT 1.5 compiled javascript is super fast relative to older versions.

cconstantine 18y ago

I was afraid of that... I'm trying to get into web developement; I've been deep in compilers and local apps for too long :(

msg 18y ago
I don't think it's bad to want to abstract away the low-levels of client-side JavaScript, but you might want to start with JavaScript first to know what and why you are abstracting away. There's a good introduction in the form of lectures from Douglas Crockford. I watched them recently and they were informative and interesting. http://www.catonmat.net/blog/learning-javascript-programming-language-through-video-lectures http://www.catonmat.net/blog/learning-javascript-programming...
- cconstantine 18y ago
  Yeah, you're probably right ;) I'll take a look at the learning-javascript-stuffs, thanks

johnyzee 18y ago

GWT is a major game changer which the world has yet to discover. I predict that soonish we'll begin seeing web applications that weren't possible before, and this will force a big shift into GWT or a GWT like web application development paradigm.

nostrademons 18y ago
I predict that those web applications that weren't possible before will all use straight JavaScript, and GWT will be relegated to the dustbin of ideas that were too early to change the game.
- jsjenkins168 18y ago
  I predict as web applications get increasingly complicated, javascript will be viewed as more of a low-level language which will be compiled down to from higher level abstractions. Not because javascript is a bad language, but because browser fragmentation is so bad. It may not just be Java (in the form of GWT), but other languages as well. Google has actually been doing this for a while now, even before GWT. Much of the javascript that is used in their apps is generated via compiler in one form or another.
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    Browser problems really aren't that bad if you use a cross-platform JavaScript library. The core language behaves basically the same in all browsers (except for the trailing-commas issue in IE), it's just the DOM and event-handling models that are a mess.
    - hello_moto 18y ago
      Those "cross-platform" libraries aren't: - Faster - Slimmer - Better compare to GWT.
- johnyzee 18y ago
  GWT applications ARE straight javascript. It's how you create and maintain those humongous javascript applications that is the question. And GWT is a killer answer.

almost 18y ago

I still don't get it. Why would I want to eschew the fairly okish and dynamic language JavaScript in favor of the big lumbering Java? The other way round I could understand.

jsjenkins168 18y ago
Because browsers suck and native javascript behavior is not predictable across platforms. In GWT the browser is abstracted and you dont worry about it. You write AJAX code and it always works. Firefox, IE, iPhone, whatever. Writing the code itself is not where the real time investment is with ambitious ajax projects. Its wasted in browser-related quirks and debugging. Being able save this valuable time and focus on building something cool is worth it in my opinion. Also GWT is just plain faster.
- almost 18y ago
  Yes, but abstracted away to Java? Ok, I see you have a point and that does seem like a good idea. The choice of language just seems crazy.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  "Writing the code itself is not where the real time investment is with ambitious ajax projects. Its wasted in browser-related quirks and debugging." That has not been my experience. I've found that the vast majority of my JavaScript development time goes to areas that are hassles in any rich UI programming (I was a Swing and then Netbeans developer before I turned to the web): 1.) Forgetting to call a listener or otherwise update UI state. 2.) Finding that the UI really works better if some faraway component auto-updates its state when you change this menu item, and having to plumb the update through the whole app. 3.) Working out corner cases when the user selects some combination of options that's so crazy you didn't think anyone could possibly choose it. I usually do all my development in Firefox and then set aside a week or so to port to IE, which I know everybody says is a terrible development practice, but it's worked on multiple projects for me. I just memorize all the areas where I'm likely to have problems, and avoid them. I usually find that well ofter 60% of the bugs are trailing commas anyway - the event-handling and DOM differences are taken care of by JQuery, and there really are not that many other core language differences.

tom_rath 18y ago

Why convert the Java app into a browser-based AJAX form when you can launch the application using Java Web Start?

olavk 18y ago

Allow me to plug my own project: http://www.ecmascript4.com/ http://www.ecmascript4.com/ Translates ECMAScript 4 to classic JavaScript. This brings type checking, classes, namespaces etc. to JavaScript, however it is still backwards compatible with classic JavaScript, so you can port gradually and integrate with existing JavaScript libraries. Best of both worlds!