Hello Ed:

That's exactly one of the matters that worries me more: the transition from the version 2.7 to the new versions and, thus, the lack of documentation (or worse, the existence of outdated or contradictory documentation). I'm worried to learn new concepts that I'll have to "un-learn" when the new versions arrive :/ . I started with the tutorials, but then I thought about this issue and decided to stop to re-consider the adoption of GWT.

What you say about the conversion of GWT into a transpiler cheers me up. Because more than an abstraction of the DOM, what I need is to replace the formula HTML + CSS + JS with HTML + CSS + Java. I guess that a developer used to Swing will have an opinion opposite to mine and will want full abstraction, but I prefer to use something closer to the browser's reality. After all, if you want abstraction, projects like Vaadin or JSF offers something simplier.

I'll look for more information about GWT 2.8 and 3.0 and then decide either if I wait to see what they bring, or start with it now.

Thank you.


On 26/10/15 14:57, Ed wrote:
Hi negora,

Its never to late for GWT.
Just be aware that there are transitions in the works as GWT moves into 2.8 and 3.0.
Search this list for road map and you will find interesting takes on the where GWT is headed.
At first GWT covered the many discrepancies of the browsers, now that the _javascript_ is supported in a standard way, GWT is transforming into a transpiler so we can write java code in our editor for translation into _javascript_ on the client side. This is a big plus no matter how you look at it.

Regards

Ed 



On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:24 AM, negora <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello:

I code in both _javascript_ and Java. I make my back-ends with Java whereas I use _javascript_ for the front-ends. Nothing new. However, for the last years I aimed my career so much to Java, that I missed out many important _javascript_ libraries and projects. Instead, I always used my old custom _javascript_ libraries. Now I want to change that, but I got a little tired of the dynamic typing, among other ugly things of _javascript_. That's why I'm considering to move either to TypeScript or to GWT.

In the case of GWT, I know that I'm "arriving" very late. There are some people that even told me to stay away from it. However, I also want to hear directly from people who still use GWT.

I don't want too much abstraction of the DOM. Indeed, I want to have absolute control over it if necessary. Could be GWT used that way, as a "thin" layer over _javascript_? I read about Elemental, but it seems to be very tied to WebKit and experimental. I also have read about GwtQuery. Would it be what I need to manipulate the DOM, instead of Elemental? Is it still maintained? Does it still receive new features?

With this I don't mean that I'm not interested in using the GWT widgets. It's the opposite really. But I want to be sure that, if I need it, I still can do things at a lower level.

Thank you.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to