I haven't found the lack of block scope in JavaScript to be an issue for two reasons:
1) It just encourages writing smaller functions which is good anyway. 2) JSLint catches issues related to scope within a function. It requires that there is only one var statement per function. Normally that is the first line in the function. In that respect, it is similar to Smalltalk syntax where that is also required. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed you can do amazing stuff with jQuery (and a jQuery UI lib) > talking to REST services, it's truly like the assembly language of the > web. But it's hard to work in teams and/or large projects, or avoid > the "Awful parts" section of the book for that matter. As web > applications continue to grow in complexity and size, I wouldn't want > to maintain these in a purely dynamic language lacking block scope. > JavaScript is after all still just a scripting language, NetScape's > bastard child that somehow outlasted Java. We use it because it's the > most pervasive thing we have, but most developers would probably not > mind there being a native LLVM/Parrot/CLR/JVM build into the core (not > silly plugin stuff)... and I think eventually we'll see just that. > > On Jul 17, 8:04 pm, Mark Volkmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> I used to love GWT. One reason was that it allowed me to create fancy >> web applications without resorting to writing JavaScript code. I >> thought that JavaScript was something to be avoided. >> >> In the last year I've done a fair amount of JavaScript development >> using jQuery. I no longer feel that JavaScript is something to be >> avoided. One thing that really changed my mind was reading the book >> "JavaScript: The Good Parts". Another is using JSLint to check my >> JavaScript, HTML and CSS files in an automated fashion before I deploy >> changes to my web application. >> >> Now that I've gone down this road, I no longer see the need for a "web >> framework". I just write REST-based services in Java or some other >> language and have them return JSON. Then I invoke them from JavaScript >> using jQuery functions. >> >> Having said that, if you have a strong preference for Java over >> JavaScript, perhaps for type checking reasons, then I think GWT is >> great. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: >> > We also went with GWT, so far everyone who tried it loves it (as >> > compared to i.e. JSF). Reusability, scalability and user-experience >> > unmatched IMHO. Still waiting for a Chrome development plugin for >> > Linux though. >> >> > On Jul 16, 5:47 pm, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm not completely caught up on the thread, but it seems GWT hasn't been >> >> mentioned. Call me crazy, but I say it's the framework to rule them(*) >> >> all(**). >> >> >> * - Java frameworks >> >> * - at the time of this writing >> >> >> Alexey >> >> 2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS) >> >> 2002 Suzuki Bandit 1200S >> >> 1992 Kawasaki >> >> EX500http://azinger.blogspot.comhttp://bsheet.sourceforge.nethttp://wcolla... >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Steve Hicks <[email protected]> >> >> To: The Java Posse <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 3:49:13 AM >> >> Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Choosing a Java web framework. >> >> >> If you want to use Java (rather than Groovy), do something quick, can >> >> bear the thought of Spring MVC being under the covers then you might >> >> want to look at Spring roo -http://www.springsource.org/roo(thereis >> >> also a Manning book in MEAP status on this topic). >> >> >> I have had a play with this and it seems promising. Indeed fancy using >> >> this on my next project in work >> >> >> On Jul 16, 8:26 am, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 19:19, Moandji Ezana <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > >> OK, might not scale well, the Open Office generated html will be nice >> >> > >> and blablabla, but who cares - a simple solution was asked. What do >> >> > >> you think? >> >> > > Export a Google Doc as a web form and you're done even quicker. >> >> > > Moandji >> >> >> > When I create a Google form I can't export it to HTML. How do you do >> >> > that? >> >> > -- >> >> > Martin Wildam >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> >> "The >> >> Java Posse" 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 >> >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "The Java Posse" 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 >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> >> -- >> R. Mark Volkmann >> Object Computing, Inc. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
