On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Miroslav Pokorny < miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The main hurdle remains that the compiler works on source and not > bytecode, was there not a plan to change this sometime in the future. > > If it worked on bytecode one could use any language as it would not > matter. Fir the moment it's too late got that now, unless some dies > the work of building the ast from bytecode instead of source. > The problem with that, as you can see by inspecting decompiler output, is that it is hard to recover the original source constructs from the bytecode, and you likely wind up taking lower-level constructs to build the JS from. In IHM, recovering source-level generic info from the bytecode signatures was a huge nightmare, and had to have heuistics based on which compiler generated the bytecode to do everything. Also, most of the languages that compile to bytecode use reflection to translate the source language in at least some cases, so it would not actually help you get those languages translated to GWT. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
