> 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.
It's not about having more information, it's about the possibility of using other JVM supported languages. Language lock-in seems like a severe limitation for a platform like the JVM -that it's clearly evolving into a multi-language platform- > 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. I assume this is only your guess. Anyway MS seems to be following this way so soon we will see how fast it's (anyway I don't see why it should be slower than Ruby -as they are both dynamically typed languages-) Anyway I was just wondering if anyone did know some solid reason as why they didn't use bytecode interpretation. Juan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
