On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:45:37 PM UTC+2, Learner Evermore wrote: > > So... If I read this correctly... Google has discovered that GWT is not > good enough (is bad) to continue using it. It is creating a J2CL that > produces readable code so that it can completely abandon its original Java > source and continue without it. The already slow involvement will turn into > no involvement at all. In fact, there may be no incentive at all to release > that J2CL ever - as soon as it becomes good enough for Google to have a bit > manual work left on the generated code it won't need it any more. >
Google didn't have any incentive to release GWT 10 years ago, or to continue maintaining it in the open source. They've always been the main drivers and main contributors so they could have stopped sync'ing their internal repository to the outside work long ago; but they did just the opposite 4 years ago, with the opensource repository being the source of truth and them sync'ing it into their internal repository (they have a few internal patches, such as completely removing the legacy devmode). You're just being pessimistic here. > If we exclude Google, who does not plan any future with GWT, steering > committee is composed of representatives from Vaadin, RedCurrent, RedHat, > Bizo and JetBrains. I truly may be mistaken but, other than perhaps Vaadin, > I don't see any company (that I am familar with) that does anything of > large scale with GWT. and may not have too much interest in particular GWT > future either. > RedHat publishes the Errai framework, and has several tools built using GWT (including their JBoss/Wildfly admin console if I'm not mistaken) RedCurrent is actively using GWT (no idea how and where), and employs (at least) 2 of the most productive contributors. ArcBees (which you didn't cite) maintains the GWT-P framework. There once was representatives from Sencha (Colin, then Justin), but they're apparently putting an halt to GXT (no new development at least), and the representatives have left the company. > Google's Closure is effectively saying "Closure is "better" than GWT". > The Closure Compiler is doing a better job at optimizing JavaScript. Even if it were doing a slightly worse job, using it means freeing development resources to work on something else. Closure is only a part of the whole (future) toolchain though. > Other technologies that are already available may also be better for > focused needs - some of which I mentioned in my posts above. Coupled with > the steering committee composition, it paints a very bleak picture of GWT 3 > future, if any, ever. > > I will say that the appeal of GWT wasn't writing Java in the browser. That > was only a part of it (and most of the complexity). It is about being able > to share a lot of code between the client and the server with all the magic > in between handled. No other existing solution handles that, including the > GWT 3 with any RPC replacement addons. Why? Because it requires writing a > ton of boilerplate code and annotations to turn one set of objects into > another and back and does not allow reusability. > Why would it necessarily require a ton of boilerplate code? Also, "handing all the magic in between" makes it way too easy to produce inefficient code in terms of network usage. > Making GWT better is possible. I am truly sorry that people haven't > realized how and decided to, instead, focus on efforts to migrate away from > it. That is what GWT 3 seems to be - a migration away tool (to Closure). > This late in the game and without organized efforts it will be very hard to > organize "the community" to do something about this, even if willing to > pay. And it is not a good investment for any one company to pay for > development of own framework here, so that won't happen either - it would > be more work than to move away likely. > > I am truly and utterly disappointed. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/4e1879be-fb0d-4084-a530-6be6bd4034bf%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
