... they did it on purpose: http://www.jsweet.org/comparing-the-gwt-transpiler-and-jsweet/
... a consequence of the simpler approach JSweet takes, is that they actually shipped and will be able to evolve jsweet much more quickly in future, IMO On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:08:48 AM UTC-8, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:47:58 AM UTC+1, Norbert Sándor wrote: >> >> > Unless you can get a perfect 1:1 mapping to java apis, people are going >> to use a java type, and not get java behavior. That would be Very Bad (tm). >> >> This is what http://www.jsweet.org/ does... >> > > AFAICT from their docs > <https://github.com/cincheo/jsweet/blob/v1.0.0/doc/jsweet-language-specifications.md>, > > most of the Java "standard library" is unavailable to JSweet: java.lang.* > "wrappers" around primitive types don't allow any method call (in other > words, they're just nullable primitives), no java.util.Date, no > java.util.List et al. > No java.util.Map. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
