Good luck!
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Greg Dougherty <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > If it ever comes to be the situation that the only way I can do > programming is on the web, then I'll waste the time to learn the > current iteration of web programming. But life is currently not so > dim or dreary, and doesn't look to be that way any time soon. (And if > I am going to take the time to "read, read, read" on new programming > ideas, it'll be on the Android (where there's a decent job market, and > worthwhile development tools) or the iPhone (I've got one iPhone app > out, but I'd like to learn more networking, and some of the newer > technologies, not on a constantly changing "standards" body heavily > influenced by Microsoft and Internet Explorer.) I have a finite > supply of "learn" time, and I have thigns that, for me, are far better > ways to spend it than reading W3C documents. > > Let me put it another way: I have absolutely NO desire to be a "master > Web applications developer". If I wanted to be one of those, I > wouldn't be using GWT. I'd be rolling my own. > > I took a look at SpringToolsSuite and Spring Roo. Their documentation > sucks, their tutorials are out of date, their integration with Eclipse > is poor, and the support on the forums is weak. So, since I AM a good > SQL developer, I said the heck with that, and rolled my own for my > current project. And do not regret the choice at all. The difference > is that I find SQL a lot more interesting than JavaScript. > > Look, I'm glad that there are people out there who WANT to dig into > the arcana of web programming. I'm not one of them. I'm someone who > wants to solve other problems. It was my impression that GWT exists > to serve the people who want to solve those other problems, and don't > want to have to dig in to that web BS (like worrying about IE vs. > FF). If that IS GWT's purpose, then their documentation sucks, and is > not in line with their purpose. > > If that ISN'T GWTs purpose, what is? > > Greg > > On Dec 7, 11:24 am, Jeff Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > I have been in IT for a very long time. You see, I am what the youngins > > sometimes refer to as an ol' fart :). As a matter of fact, I've been a > > developer in one form or another for so long that everything else prior > to > > that seems to me to be prehistory - a vague sense of something there but > not > > having much substance (oh GOD, help me lol). > > > > My point is that as technologies advance I try to stay current and for > those > > technologies that I have or will chose to base a career on I've tried to > > master them to the best of my ability. That means giving up lots of > personal > > time to read up on everything I can get my hands on. Why the story? > Because > > I am trying to convey to you that there are no shortcuts or free lunches. > If > > you want to be a master Web applications developer then you will have to > > read and learn everything you can about Web development that you can get > > your hands on. It is that simple, I am afraid. The benefits are obvious, > as > > the current limitations you perceive there to be in the GWT documents > serve > > to exemplify. > > > > I'm afraid that comparing Google to other companies, even if only for > their > > quality of documentation, isn't going to be very productive and will just > > serve to frustrate you even more. Take the time and go and read, read, > read, > > and play with all the different things you do read up on. One day soon > you > > will have what can only be described as an epiphany, that moment when it > all > > gels and at that moment you will have a big smile on your face - a Kodak > > moment! > > > > Jeff > > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Greg Dougherty > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If I knew JavaScript and DOM, or, for that matter, even WANTED to > know > > > > > JavaScript and DOM, I wouldn't be using GWT, I'd be writing the > > > > > JavaScript myself. No? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Abstractions do not work for these kind of things. > > > > > It's not a matter of abstractions, it's a matter of explanations. > > > IMAO, the JavaDoc for a KeyPressEvent should tell you exactly what > > > that event IS. And what's the difference between it and the other > > > Key*Events. It shouldn't be that hard, after all the person writing > > > the code had better know the answer to that question, no? > > > > > Google has detailed requirements for the format of any code submitted > > > to be part of GWT. How about a requirement that the documentation > > > attached to the code actually has to provide some value, too? > > > > > And I think you're confusing this post (about trying to figure out > > > which event to use) with my other post (where the tutorial code for > > > getting an enter key doesn't work). > > > > > The point of THIS thread is that the people writing "documentation" > > > for a lot of the GWT routines seem to assume that everyone using GWT > > > spends as much time reading W3C documentation as the doc writers do, > > > and as such they end up writing documentation that is worthless until > > > you go read the W3C docs (or come here and beg for information). The > > > further point is that this is a bad assumption on their part, and that > > > it would be good if they stopped writing docs that way. > > > > > Greg > > > > > On Dec 4, 6:11 am, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 3 déc, 20:50, Greg Dougherty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Jeff, > > > > > > > Thank you. That' lets me know which one I want to use. > > > > > > > If I knew JavaScript and DOM, or, for that matter, even WANTED to > know > > > > > JavaScript and DOM, I wouldn't be using GWT, I'd be writing the > > > > > JavaScript myself. No? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Abstractions do not work for these kind of things. GWT is no > different > > > > from jQuery, Prototype.js and others in this respect: it tries to > hide > > > > browser discrepancies, but that doesn't mean you're freed from > knowing > > > > them (or least that they exist). > > > > What GWT gives you that JavaScript doesn't is that it's Java, i.e. > you > > > > can reuse some code between your (Java) server and client, you > benefit > > > > from Java's static typing (which among other things make refactoring > > > > efficient), you benefit from the tools from the Java world. > > > > (don't put words in my mouth though: there are drawbacks to using > Java > > > > compared to JavaScript, they're two different languages, each with > > > > their own strengths) > > > > > > > The whole point of using something like GWT is that it lets a Java > > > > > programmer write a web app w/o having to learn all the crap that > > > > > normal web app writers have to wade through. That's certainly why > I > > > > > spent the time and effort to learn GWT. For that matter, I presume > > > > > that the people writing things like the KeyPressEventHandler DO > know > > > > > JavaScript and DOM. So, really, how hard is it for them to put > that > > > > > knowledge into the documentation? Isn't that what the > documentation > > > > > is THERE for? > > > > > > The problem is that key/char event is a real mess! > > > > All browsers behave differently (though WebKit is really close to > IE). > > > > Different successive versions of a given browser don't behave the > > > > same. The same version of a given browser behave different on > > > > different platforms. > > > > It's hard (if ever possible!) to build an API with a consistent > > > > behavior. > > > > See for instance, and amongst many: > > >http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=72http:/. > .. > > > > > -- > > > 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]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]> > <google-web-toolkit%[email protected]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]> > > > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > > > -- > > *Jeff Schwartz* > > -- > 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]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > -- *Jeff Schwartz* -- 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.
