"Tobias Pankrath" <tob...@pankrath.net> wrote in message news:jfmm43$1c99$1...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> "Tobias Pankrath" <tob...@pankrath.net> wrote in message >> news:jfkn05$h2n$1...@digitalmars.com... >>>>> Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like a horrible idea? :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's horrible, but not as horrible as using straight JavaScript (or >>>> CoffeeScript, IMO). >>>> >>>> It's a necessary evil thanks to JavaScript's underserved ubiquity. >>> >>> Google Web Toolkit works quite well. >> >> I'd have a hard time trusting it. Would the resulting code necessarily >> use >> Ajax even if I didn't want it to? How much JS overhead does it pull in >> for >> simple uses of JS? Does the resulting code automatically interact with >> Google's servers in any way? How compatible is the resulting JS? Would >> the >> resulting code break the page when JS is off? It's Google, for god's >> sake, >> can they even be trusted at all? Etc. > > Can't see any technical argument here.
What's your point? Any one of them answered the wrong way would render it unusuable for my use-cases. Technical or not, that certainly makes them relevent.
