+1 for pseudocode, it would be funny to see Pascal Wave though, maybe Scheme, or C could be more useful
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> wrote: > With all this discussion on language/library, I'll definately stick to > my choice of psuedocode so as to cut through any "controversy". > > As for working on the waveprotocols site, what do I need to do to edit > it. My Google account is the same as eMail except @gmail.com. Just don't > contact me on it, I rarely look at it. > -- > Adrian Cochrane > [email protected] > > > On Mon, 30 May 2011 00:44 +0200, "Thomas Wrobel" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > As a gwt coder, that seems rather reinventing the wheel for no good > > reason. :) > > What gwt does for you is abstract away almost all browser differences > > leaving a very pure coding expirence to make webapps. > > "foo" most certainly isnt always the same when compiled because > > different browsers have both different javascript as well as layout > > engines. GWT gives you a generic "foo" for you to code in and compiles > > to different implementations per browser to give the end result as > > close to identical as possible, while ensuring no browser has to waste > > loading time on quirks for other browsers.(at the same time being very > > heavy at optimisation). So, by design, foo is not always a fixed > > thing. > > For what it does, gwt does very well, you'd be hard pressed to come up > > with a better replacement without a lot more manual work. > > > > In regards to widgets,layouts, and general web interface gwt is always > > going to unpredictable and changing at the html level. > > However, in regards to pure coding, its pretty stable. It could > > basicly just be seen as a subset of java. > > Specificaly this subset; > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/RefJreEmulation.html > > (The biggest thing I've come accross personaly is just having to > > rememeber its Javascript style regexs) > > > > So porting to gwt is a problem if you use more then those, but porting > > away is never any work as its "just java". > > (I often reuse logic code between my gwt apps and my android stuff - > > as long as your not dealing with visual stuff theres rarely any > > issues) > > > > That said, I'm not saying its a great for a referance implementation, > > merely a way for all the code both sides to be done in Java if thats > > an advantage. > > > > At the end of the day I asume we are (probably) looking at a websocket > > based system anyway - possible sending messages done using an existing > > websocket implementation? So the question is over the code forming and > > packing what to send, as well as the code picking up the responses. > > The layout code doesnt play any role in this really. > > > > Its also quite possible to have a Javascript lib that a gwt app can > > interact with. (Or native javascript statements in gwt). Theres no > > reason why not to play to the strengths of various platforms. > > > > So you could have Java (Wiab server) >>>>(websocket)>>>>CS protocol > > Javascript lib>>>(generated javascript fropm gwt or something else) > > > > > > On 29 May 2011 23:12, Paul Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There was talk of getting rid of GWT a while back. I think it is useful > for Java > > > guys to prototype in, but it seems a bit of a monstrosity to me. There > is > > > frameworks like sproutcore, and you can hand roll with coffescript. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Perry Smith <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Sun, 29 May, 2011 21:28:05 > > > Subject: Re: protocols > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > > > > > >>> > > >>> If the majority of the client side is going to actually use > javascript, then > > >>>lets use that on the client side. > > >>> > > >>> I wonder... can Rhino[1] hook in to another Java application? Then > we could > > >>>use javascript on both sides and still test. > > >> > > >> Well, WiaB uses GWT for its webclient - so code wise its actualy Java > > >> both sides, but then compiled to javascript. > > > > > > Yea. I thought about that but pulled back. I looked at GWT. I don't > know if > > > we say "foo" in GWT and that compiles to Javascript if that is really > going to > > > be "precisely" defined. GWT seems like it was moving rather fast six > months ago > > > so the translation of "foo" today may be a lot different than the > translation of > > > "foo" a year from now. > > > > > > GWT represents what I don't like about Java. It isn't really using > Java > > > directly but using things defined in Java. Each of those things would > need to > > > be defined. I've gotten the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that the > average > > > Java code could not get back to pure Java code without a tremendous > amount of > > > work. > > > > > > Now, it might be that since a protocol is rather simple, that the range > of > > > constructs used would be small. But, ultimately, any predefined > construct (like > > > an existing Java class or interface) would have to be defined in terms > that > > > could be verified. > > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail > >
