I don't think bytecode can be used at all... JSNI will fail to work. JSNI code -- for Java compiler is pure comment, and would be lost in bytecode.
-- Cheers, Gaurav Vaish http://dwt.sf.net http://www.mastergaurav.com --------------------------------- On Aug 24, 10:01 am, "Issac Trotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see how using byte code would be any better than using source > code, since the source code has just as much information. Maybe > compiles could be made a little bit faster, but that's not a serious > issue since reloads are so fast in hosted mode. > > GWT probably couldn't generate fast JavaScript if it used Ruby instead > of Java, because it wouldn't have the type information it needs for > optimization. > > Issac > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Juan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > One of the good things about Microsoft Volta is that it uses the > > bytecode, not the source code. This allows them to use any language. I > > wonder why the GWT didn't follow this approach. Can you imagine > > programming the front end using JRuby ? Sweeeeeet :) > > > Best regards, > > Juan > > --http://svwebbuilder.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
