4 ms·
I like it, but it's still java-only. That makes it a private static final No go, for me.
by moe 17y ago
I like it, but it's still java-only.
That makes it a private static final No go, for me.
- pohl 17y agoWhat do you mean by java-only? This toolkit is, at its most fundamental level, a Java-to-Javascript compiler. Are you hoping that they write a Python-to-Javascript compiler and still call it GWT?
- moe 17y agoWell, I'm not realistically hoping for anything wrt GWT. I was just trying to say: I like the concept, but not enough to walk through java-hell for it. So, talking about hopes, I hope pyjamas will mature to a point where it becomes a serious option.
- stanleydrew 17y agono, they call it pyjamas: http://pyjs.org/ http://pyjs.org/ http://code.google.com/p/pyjamas/ http://code.google.com/p/pyjamas/
- lacker 17y agoPyjamas is a port of GWT to python by a different team, by the way (you probably already know, just making it clear)
- runevault 17y agoDepends, they could have made it JVM bytecode to html/javascript/etc compiler, allowing you to use any jvm language theoretically, or at least any that can compile to .class files (scala, clojure, probably others I don't know about).
- simonw 17y agoI dislike it because I think JavaScript is a perfectly reasonable language for application development - it may have its warts, but they certainly aren't worth introducing a layer of abstraction that thick over them (and Java is hardly wart-free).
- tezza 17y agoI have used GWT extensively and like it a lot. You are approaching the problem from the perspective of deploying a new web-application. GWT is good when you are approaching from an existing service and web-enabling it. --- Further, some people like compile-time checks and the sophisticated IDEs. With statically typed languages you can easily build an exhaustive list of all uses of something, where as dynamic/functional is much harder. This makes changes and refactoring easier IMO.
- swolchok 17y ago>With statically typed languages you can easily build an exhaustive list of all uses of something, where as dynamic/functional is much harder. This makes changes and refactoring easier IMO. This is not guaranteed in Java and C# -- someone might have used reflection somewhere. http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/12/codes-worst-enemy.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/12/codes-worst-enemy.ht...
- hello_moto 17y agoReflection is usually kept at minimum at most libraries and systems. Those reflection codes are also self-contained in most cases (transforming from one object to the other, etc). So all in all, refactoring is still a lot easier. Furthermore, GWT takes out Java reflection.
- pohl 17y agoJavaScript is a perfectly reasonable application for the initial stages of application development, I'll grant you that. But it's flawed in the long-term, when it comes time for someone else to maintain and safely refactor the code as the originators leave and someone else needs to inherit the codebase. That's when the static nature of Java bears fruit. The nice side-effect of fully leveraging its static nature is that you always get the minimal amount of javascript to ship over the wire. (Their "pay as you go" design philosophy.)
- lacker 17y agoYou're missing the value of having the same language for both client and server. If you have some code that you want to run both in the browser and on a server, GWT lets you write that in Java. Unless you write server-side javascript you can't do this in pure JS. (Too bad appjet is shutting down.)