GWT also seems to be heading into the direction of lazy loading - take a look at the runAsync branch in GWT svn - it's pretty sweet. I really don't think that MS's approach of one js file per class is wise. Afterall current browsers have a limit of 2 connections per domain, which really limits the number of concurrent connections and ultimately the speed of downloads. I like more GWT's upcoming approach to lazy loading - let the developer control what gets loaded lazily vs eagerly.
Tim http://gwtnow.com On Aug 25, 7:06 am, "Magno Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to clarify, I am NOT defending JS from bytecode. I just think both > strategies have pros and cons. > Let's give MS some time to mature it's product and see what's the best > approach. > > 2008/8/25 Jason Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Quite frankly, my point of view on this subject is: reverse engineering > > Java > > byte-code is a black-art. > > > Different Java compilers produce different byte-code structures, often > > confusing > > these tools. The tools themselves are constantly trying to patch strange > > little > > behaviours as the compilers change and the byte-code changes. Decompilers > > are > > nasty beasts on the inside, and often break while trying to decompile > > certain > > structures. > > > One of the advantages of using byte-code for GWT would be multi-language > > support? I think not! It would be hard enough just trying to maintain a Sun > > JavaC decompiler, let alone trying to get other language compilers (and > > their > > supporting API's) running in JavaScript. > > > Go take a look at the JRE emulation code in GWT for String. Then think > > about how > > well this would fly. A bit like a herd of drunk elephants. > > > Magno Machado wrote: > > > Depending on the level of the performance penalty, loading class on > > > demand is much better than downloading all the application on start up, > > > as GWT does. > > > ---- > > > Another advantage of generate JS from compiled code is that one can > > > write a lib and don't have to make the sources available for users. > > > > 2008/8/25 Maxim <maxim.ge <http://maxim.ge>@gmail.com <http://gmail.com > > > > On Aug 25, 7:46 am, Arthur Kalmenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > compiles statically typed languages. A lot of the GWT > > optimizations > > > > rely on types being known at compile time and the removal of > > > > Reflections, these two properties are fundamental in most dynamic > > > > languages and would thus make it impossible to optimize code the > > > > resulting JS the way the GWT compiler does. > > > > As I understand from: > > > > http://livelabs.com/volta/docs/issues/ > > > "At run time a Volta application downloads many files from the > > server, > > > one for each class that is used. The classes are loaded lazily, i.e. > > > not downloaded until they are needed..." > > > > they do not need "by size" optimization - they load only those > > classes > > > which are really used. > > > > >From other side, loading class-by-class can seriously affect > > > perfomance ... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
