On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:25 PM Rogelio Flores <rogelio.flo...@gmail.com> 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 <gour...@gmail.com> 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 <t.br...@gmail.com> >>> 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 google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >>> To post to this group, send email to google-we...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >>> >>>> 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 google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> >> To post to this group, send email to google-we...@googlegroups.com. >> >> >>> 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 google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. > 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 google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
