there is an old group post <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/google-web-toolkit-contributors/7cQVHAFVZrc/AMF7UxahsS4J> that already discusses the byte-code vs. source code issue - maybe it is still helpful
I think the http://www.gwtproject.org/makinggwtbetter.html page should be updated for GWT 3.0. As I understood all the talks, info etc. about GWT 3.x (e.g. GWT-3.0-Sencha-GXT-and-the-future-of-the-widget-eco-system <https://www.sencha.com/forum/showthread.php?306057-GWT-3.0-Sencha-GXT-and-the-future-of-the-widget-eco-system-..>) we will lose some of the GWT 2.x benefits - please anybody correct my when I got things wrong - "Key facilities out of the box: history, RPC, localization, and unit testing": History, RPC and localization will only be available as 3rd party add-ons - "Discourage unoptimizable patterns": - the GWT compiler cannot optimize js-GUIs (Webcomponents, Polymer, ..) per browser: so we must always send all the css-prefix bloat and js for feature-detection, browser quirks etc. to the client (no matter which browser it is) - code-splitting worked great for GWT-widgets - I don't see how this could work for js-widgets I've always seen the biggest benefits of GWT like this: - you can build fast, big, reliable, rock-solid web-apps - you can get perfectly optimized js code - so that you can also build a great mobile-experience, where smallest code size (and minimal initial download size) is of most importance - you can use the the same statically typed language (Java, or compile-to-Java languages, e.g. xtend) on the client/server (now even for Web/Android/iOS like Google Inbox <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8554339>) On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 16:00:46 UTC+1, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:06:24 PM UTC+1, Adam M wrote: >> >> Call me old school but for me direction in which GWT 3.0 is going is >> strange - if I'm forced to use HTML5/JavaScript libraries instead GWT >> widgets why I should do anything in Java in the first place - just grab >> Angular or Ember and be done - GWT doesn't help me too much with server >> side code anyway. The whole purpose of using GWT/GWTP was to avoid to deal >> with JavaScript, at least in my case. >> > > You fooled yourself (but you're not alone). The whole purpose of GWT has > always been about tooling: http://www.gwtproject.org/makinggwtbetter.html > Now that tooling is quite good in the JS world, GWT is turning to… > tooling, still (because tooling for a statically-typed language is > different from / can go farther than for a dynamically-typed one), and > sharing code. > > > >> For me TeaVM has completely different approach to the problem than GWT - >> it allows language agnostic web application development (I never liked GWT >> no prisoners taken approach - Java or nothing - but as you know there was >> nothing better in "dark ages" of web application development) - even that >> end result is very similar - JavaScript code running in the browser. >> I wonder if something similar like Java Byte Code to JavaScript could be >> done with Microsoft CLI to JavScript (just wild shot - I'm not too familiar >> with the whole .Net infrastructure - different programming environment) >> > > Not only can it be done, but has been done, many times, including by > Microsoft themselves: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Live_Labs_Volta > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMicrosoft_Live_Labs_Volta&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEdBviOLnye1JafAOvLleqhldxSoQ> > > http://jscriptsuite.com/ http://jsil.org/ http://jsc.sourceforge.net/ > https://github.com/Reactive-Extensions/IL2JS > https://github.com/mtenpow/xaeios > BTW, there are / has been also many source-to-source compilers using C# as > input: http://bridge.net/ http://duoco.de/ http://sharpkit.net/ and the > pioneer of them all and now apparently defunct: > https://github.com/nikhilk/scriptsharp > -- 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.
