You've essentially described the JVM which is on some 4 billion machines. Have you programmed with Swing or Applets?
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:24 AM, lusus <[email protected]> wrote: > > First I would like to point out a few important facts: > 1) I think that GWT is a fantastic idea, and that the developers > deserve awards and ice cream and funny hats and should be carried > through the streets. > 2) I am just throwing this out as a discussion point. > 3) I am not a classically trained programmer, and some of my > terminology may be technically errant. Try to go with the overarching > idea, and not just write me off because I thought REST meant nap > time. > > Now with that said, here's my question/thought. > > Isn't it time that we finally quit trying to warp the WWW into what we > really want it to be, and come up with a new protocol all together? > More specifically, isn't it time we made a "browser" that simply > interprets the major programming languages - not riding on the WWW, > but with it's own network protocols? > > It could exist like a stub on an individual client computer, run over > it's own public port, and allow push AND pull communication. > Programmers would need only to learn the proper communication methods, > and could then write unbridled applications that are served directly > to the clients, bypassing the rube-goldberg system of manipulation > required to make it understandable by the CURRENT browsers. > > What if you could write a JAVA program where main() was served to the > client "browser" and that's that. As cool as GWT is, when you step > back and think about the actual structure, it's conjures (at least for > me) images of popsicle sticks and duct tape. First you write the JAVA > code, and add CSS styles. Those are combined and interpreted to > Javascript which is optimized to several (currently used) browsers, > which is in turn interpreted to HTML and displayed in the browser, > which is based on a protocol that does not REALLY allow push > communication. *** Again, nothing against the GWT developers. They did > a fine job of contorting the existing structures to bring us closer to > the goal. *** > > I realize that, as far as cloud computing is concerned, the GWT > outcome is (almost) the same as what I'm talking about. You write JAVA > code, and it gets displayed in the browsers. Who cares what torture it > has to go through to get there. right? > > Looking back, it was oh so simple to get virtually everyone using the > WWW. Would it be that hard to get the general public to accept a new > internet that involves application browsers? > > And finally, the "browsers" could be made to understand multiple > programming languages. It could basically be an omni- (and slightly > upgraded for communication purposes) Virtual Machine. > > Here is my list of key points: > 1) Cut out the middle man. No more Rube-Goldberg. > 2) Allow Push communication. > 3) No worries about upgraded or new browsers, and cross-browser > compatibility. (The App-Browsers would just keep up with the current > programming language upgrades.) > 4) Use the layout tools that belong the the program language you are > using. > 5) Wouldn't it possibly even be more secure? (maybe not) > 6) Let the kids play in the WWW kiddy pool. Let the real programmers > swim in the deep end, away from the yellow water. > > That's all. I don't work for the W3C, and I've never once even spoken > to Al Gore. I have no idea how to make something like this happen. I'm > just interested in thoughts on the matter. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
