On Oct 27, 9:35 am, Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/10/27 Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Ross, you are thinking too narrowly. Think of a single code base. When > > > it runs on the desktop, it has access to local file system and other OS > > > facilities. When it runs in a browser like GWT does today, it degrades > > > nicely and only loses minimal functionality. Write once, run anywhere. > > You can already do it at no cost (i.e. no need to rewrite GWT in pure > Java) with Adobe AIR or Mozilla Prism.
... yes... by running the GWT-auto-generated javascript, rather than compiling and running the java [linked with the as-yet-to-be-ported GWT-desktop-libraries]. thus, as a developer, you have lost the advantage of being able to find errors at compile-time, because you're still running the javascript. i immediately found a good 20-30 errors the moment i used pyjamas- desktop to run the kitchensink examples and the library itself, because i was being presented with a proper python runtime. missing arguments on function calls. _too many_ arguments on function calls. undefined variables. missing "super" calls. assumptions in string / integer conversions (printf). _none_ of these things were found with the python-to-javascript compiler, or when running with javascript, because javascript is far too permissive. so there are significant _development_ advantages. l. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
