I don't think "mistake" is the right word there.  I'm not an expert on
Java Compilers and JVMs, but I'll go out on a limb here and risk
embarrassing myself - my gut feeling is that Java is much easier to
compile into javascript than random bytecode is.  GWT makes aggressive
optimizations based on information it can infer from java semantics.
If GWT had to generalize to work with any possible bytecode, I doubt
the resulting javascript could be as efficient.  Part of GWT's appeal
is that the end product is fast and lean javascript.  While it would
be nice if GWT could turn random x86 executable into blazingly fast
javascript, I'm not going to criticize the GWT team because they
haven't done so yet.  If I'm wrong, and making GWT work with JVM is
trivial to do, that's awesome!  Submit the patch to the GWT team.  The
fact that no one has yet done so yet implies to me that this is not an
easy thing to do, or else no one really wants to do it.  In either
case, it is not a mistake that it hasn't been done.

If you really like working in Scala, you could look into contributing
to the project to compile Scala into Java, mentioned at the bottom of
this page:  http://www.scala-lang.org/faq/4

If this post has a slightly sharp tone, it's because I don't like it
when people criticize open source projects with vague complaints while
at the same time asking for new features.

-peter

On Oct 21, 2:07 pm, Amir  Michail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please support Java byte code so that we can use any languages that
> work using the JVM such as Scala.
>
> GWT made a mistake in only supporting Java.  I hope they correct it.
>
> Amir
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to