On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:25 PM Rogelio Flores <[email protected]> wrote:
> @Boris I think exactly the opposite has been observed with respect to the > output javascript size. GWT's transpiler does optimizations, minification, > and obfuscation. You might be failing to consider that only one permutation > of the javascript code is the one that actually runs on a given browser, > which is what you should use to compare vs X JS library. > Using your favorite JS library, you have to basically ship all of its JS > code, regardless if you use it (contrary to GWT's case). > In addition, ClientBundles allow you to optimize and reduce the CSS3 code > size and the number of HTTP requests for images (sprites) and other files. > > @Rogelio Flores I was driving towards your points by questioning Gourab Panda's assertion that GWT produces twice as much JS code as an app written purely in JS. A hello world example might indicate that GWT produces JS bloat but a real world app would probably belie conclusions from such an example. > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:38:57 AM UTC-7, Boris Brudnoy wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:11 PM Gourab Panda <[email protected]> wrote: >> > - Generates Lots of Javascript code. Code splitting solve this problems, >>> but still it generates double(or even more) JS code than that of pure JS >>> app. >>> >> >> Are you basing this on a Hello World example? GWT emulates JDK and so >> sets up a lot of operational infrastructure upfront. Do you have any >> specifics on whether all additionally written functionality linearly adds >> x2 or more JS code? When it comes to comparing applications with scores of >> screens and hundreds of function points, how do sizes stuck up? >> >> >>> - You write code in Java, but you also consider(or Think) how the >>> Javascript will be generated. >>> >> >> You don't need to think much about JS generated from your Java code, but >> you do have to consider an app in its environment, the browser. In other >> words, GWT lets you use the Java toolchain but doesn't relieve you from >> familiarity with HTTP, HTML, CSS, JavaScript and browser behavior. >> >> >>> - As far as I know, no new product development uses GWT, lots of company >>> still using it because they can't migrate easily. >>> >> >> What about Google Sheets >> <https://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2013/12/new-google-sheets-faster-more-powerful.html> >> or >> Inbox >> <https://drive.google.com/a/vaadin.com/file/d/0B3ktS-w9vr8IS2ZwQkw3WVRVeXc/view>, >> Google's next generation email app? Both started relatively recently and >> are long term projects. Surely Google leads by example here? >> >> Boris Brudnoy >> > >>> >>> Regards >>> Gourab. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 4:58:36 PM UTC+1, Adolfo Rodriguez >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, the main problem of GWT is that you are irrelevant for >>>>> crawlers, and this is a serious commercial drawback, despite I love GWT >>>>> >>>> >>>> Isn't that the case for any webpage generated entirely through >>>> JavaScript? (whether that JS has been hand-written, generated from Java >>>> code through GWT, or from CoffeeScript, TypeScript, Scala, Closure, you >>>> name it) >>>> (and specifically, this applies to AngularJS too, as we're in a "GWT vs >>>> AngularJS" thread) >>>> >>>> >>>>> If GWT would be able to generate the plain HTML it would beat any pure >>>>> JS library >>>>> >>>> >>>> Something like >>>> http://dev.arcbees.com/gwtp/advanced/crawler-support.html ? (which I >>>> don't think is limited to applications using GWTP btw) >>>> See also https://prerender.io/ (independent from the client-side >>>> technology, whether GWT, AngularJS, etc.) >>>> >>>> But as Vassilis said, Google and Bing execute JS (to some extent) so at >>>> least there you're covered without additional work. Things are likely to be >>>> different with Baidu and DuckDuckGo (to name a few) >>>> >>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> -- >> *BORIS BRUDNOY* >> Web Application Developer, Java/GWT Enthusiast (LinkedIn >> <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/borisbrudnoy>) >> > -- > 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. > -- *BORIS BRUDNOY* Web Application Developer, Java/GWT Enthusiast (LinkedIn <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/borisbrudnoy>) -- 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.
