4 ms·

GWT? Seriously? I cannot think of any large, significant web app that has been written in GWT. I thought it would be clear by now that we do not need Java Ente

GWT? Seriously? I cannot think of any large, significant web app that has been written in GWT. I thought it would be clear by now that we do not need Java Enterprise in our web browsers. The web seems to be moving the other way - we have lightweight libs such as jQuery, underscore, backbone etc... and they seem to provide JS with the necessary building blocks for larger, maintainable systems.

pohl 14y ago
GWT? Seriously? I cannot think of any large, significant web app that has been written in GWT. I would consider the AWS management console to be significant.
- heretohelp 14y ago
  It actually does a lot to explain why I hate the AWS management console so much.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Most people are users of the software, not developers, and so they hate the product because it's bad, not because it's written in Java. Wait, you don't work for Amazon, so I'm confused...
munificent 14y ago
AdWords, AdSense, Flights, Hotel Finder, Offers, Wallet, The New Blogger, Chrome Webstore, Product Search, Public Data, New Google Groups, Orkut, Google Takeout, Google Pagespeed, Google WebFonts, Google Tables, Google Health (discontinued), Google Wave (discontinued), PlayN (basis of Angry Birds) http://gwtreferencelist.appspot.com/#AboutPlace http://gwtreferencelist.appspot.com/#AboutPlace:
- _pferreir_ 14y ago
  OK, I stand corrected. Still, that doesn't make it a good idea. Not to mention that most of those apps are Google products.
mping 14y ago
GWT doesn't get the fair share of respect it deserves. It's not enterprise java (j2ee and such), it's a toolkit that (amongst other things) lets you write and debug java, that gets compiled to javascript in the end. GWT is not modular in the same sense as jQuery/underscore/backbone/any other js library, that's its weakness but also its strength. Also, the same modularity of those libs is simultaneously its strength and weakness. You plug jQuery mobile and backbone, you have to hack the router. You plug backbone with rails, you have to hack backbone.sync; but that's okay, we're all hackers. If you want to dismiss GWT because it's java that's ok, but there are alot of good reasons (some non-technical) to choose java instead of CS or whatever. In fact, if you look at the history of GWT, they had all these "enterprise" patterns such as EventBus or Composite Views, or any other thing that the backbone/spine/etc camps are re-writing right now.
- arcos 14y ago
  No, simply no. GWT is everything we should be running screaming from, and yes because its Java and yes because it lets programmers be lazy and not go out of their comfort zone and fucking learning JavaScript
- cashew 14y ago
  GWT's RequestFactory feature particularly stands out as a huge productivity win for CRUD apps. Also, many of the weaknesses commonly associated with Java are diminished now that Google's excellent Java libraries (Guava, Guice) have become more widespread (with GWT versions also avaiable). But I think people try GWT once, realize that the built-in widgets and panels look terrible and never look back. But some of the features that they don't get to trying are the features that really makes GWT worth using (the EventBus, RequestFactory, UiBinder, the excellent localization support, etc.). GWT also doesn't preclude using any other JavaScript libraries. JSNI (writing native JavaScript within GWT Java source) is relatively easy -- I don't think it is uncommon to pull in JQuery in a GWT app for its effects, for example.
- _pferreir_ 14y ago
  I know what GWT is. I agree that it provides out of the box certain functionalities that require a bit of "glue code" when using other frameworks. However, the whole "just write a desktop app and we will turn it into a web app" philosophy doesn't seem very web-oriented to me. Yes, it works, it's easy, but if one day you want to change your client-side code (i.e. use a different framework or something) you'll most likely have to change the server side as well. It just seems to be too RPC-centered and too monolithic. But maybe I'm wrong.

pohl 14y ago

GWT? Seriously? I cannot think of any large, significant web app that has been written in GWT. I would consider the AWS management console to be significant.

heretohelp 14y ago
It actually does a lot to explain why I hate the AWS management console so much.
- jrockway 14y ago
  Most people are users of the software, not developers, and so they hate the product because it's bad, not because it's written in Java. Wait, you don't work for Amazon, so I'm confused...

munificent 14y ago

AdWords, AdSense, Flights, Hotel Finder, Offers, Wallet, The New Blogger, Chrome Webstore, Product Search, Public Data, New Google Groups, Orkut, Google Takeout, Google Pagespeed, Google WebFonts, Google Tables, Google Health (discontinued), Google Wave (discontinued), PlayN (basis of Angry Birds) http://gwtreferencelist.appspot.com/#AboutPlace http://gwtreferencelist.appspot.com/#AboutPlace:

_pferreir_ 14y ago
OK, I stand corrected. Still, that doesn't make it a good idea. Not to mention that most of those apps are Google products.

mping 14y ago

GWT doesn't get the fair share of respect it deserves. It's not enterprise java (j2ee and such), it's a toolkit that (amongst other things) lets you write and debug java, that gets compiled to javascript in the end. GWT is not modular in the same sense as jQuery/underscore/backbone/any other js library, that's its weakness but also its strength. Also, the same modularity of those libs is simultaneously its strength and weakness. You plug jQuery mobile and backbone, you have to hack the router. You plug backbone with rails, you have to hack backbone.sync; but that's okay, we're all hackers. If you want to dismiss GWT because it's java that's ok, but there are alot of good reasons (some non-technical) to choose java instead of CS or whatever. In fact, if you look at the history of GWT, they had all these "enterprise" patterns such as EventBus or Composite Views, or any other thing that the backbone/spine/etc camps are re-writing right now.

arcos 14y ago
No, simply no. GWT is everything we should be running screaming from, and yes because its Java and yes because it lets programmers be lazy and not go out of their comfort zone and fucking learning JavaScript
cashew 14y ago
GWT's RequestFactory feature particularly stands out as a huge productivity win for CRUD apps. Also, many of the weaknesses commonly associated with Java are diminished now that Google's excellent Java libraries (Guava, Guice) have become more widespread (with GWT versions also avaiable). But I think people try GWT once, realize that the built-in widgets and panels look terrible and never look back. But some of the features that they don't get to trying are the features that really makes GWT worth using (the EventBus, RequestFactory, UiBinder, the excellent localization support, etc.). GWT also doesn't preclude using any other JavaScript libraries. JSNI (writing native JavaScript within GWT Java source) is relatively easy -- I don't think it is uncommon to pull in JQuery in a GWT app for its effects, for example.
_pferreir_ 14y ago
I know what GWT is. I agree that it provides out of the box certain functionalities that require a bit of "glue code" when using other frameworks. However, the whole "just write a desktop app and we will turn it into a web app" philosophy doesn't seem very web-oriented to me. Yes, it works, it's easy, but if one day you want to change your client-side code (i.e. use a different framework or something) you'll most likely have to change the server side as well. It just seems to be too RPC-centered and too monolithic. But maybe I'm wrong.