Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Tobias Pankrath" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >>>> Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like a horrible idea? :) >>>> >>> >>> It's horrible, but not as horrible as using straight JavaScript (or >>> CoffeeScript, IMO). >>> >>> It's a necessary evil thanks to JavaScript's underserved ubiquity. >> >> Google Web Toolkit works quite well. > > I'd have a hard time trusting it. Would the resulting code necessarily use > Ajax even if I didn't want it to? How much JS overhead does it pull in for > simple uses of JS? Does the resulting code automatically interact with > Google's servers in any way? How compatible is the resulting JS? Would the > resulting code break the page when JS is off? It's Google, for god's sake, > can they even be trusted at all? Etc.
Can't see any technical argument here.
