First a couple of rhetorical questions to you: a) why do you think JQuery and GWT are equivalent? b) why do you think the sites of the JQuery list are probably led by some smart, deep-thinking, open-minded individuals (IBM's web site might not necessarily be built by IBM....)? c) why do you think the GWT list you pointed to is definitive? (try this as at least one update: http://www.gwtsite.com/whos-using-gwt/)
You use the tools appropriate to the job and for which is the "least" cost to you. To me, JQuery is a "simple" library best suited to evolving aspects to a web site using the JavaScript language; GWT is more suited to building applications and is more than just using Java - you get, amongst other things: a) One base code that drives code for all browsers with the well managed approach called deferred binding when you hit across a situation where one browser (we know the now) does things differently - driving down you costs of development. b) The same code for browsers can quickly become widgets and gadgets, using different linkers - again driving down cost of development. c) You use modern development practices and tools - IDE with autocomplete, refactoring, JUnit, Maven, Ant etc - there's a real reason why we've enhanced software development over the years to invent and use these tools; they will drive down costs for (complicated) developments. d) You get generators that allow you to combine / generate new stuff from source stuff - ok that's vague, but this is a real example of where GWT is more than just a Java to JavaScript compiler. You get ImageBundles, meaning in source you manage your images separately and you let GWT pull those together into one image at compile time that can be accessed as "sprites" in run-time - you save wire-space, cut down on server requests meaning increased user experience, and there are more like this is on the way. Yes you can do all this by hand, but that all costs time and money, with GWT it comes for free when hitting the compile button. e) Same language client and sever side, but with flexibility to use whatever server side you want. f) Aggressive reduction in code size from libraries, both your own and/ or 3rd party libraries - all decreasing load size and increasing user experience g) Ability (soon) seemlessly defer loading of functionality until it's needed - i.e. if you have a 4 tab application load only the code for tabs as they are needed - again decreasing initial application load and increasing user experience h) I would argue in Java it is easier to see how to "defer" creation of objects in order to decrease initialisation time of applications - maybe that is just me, but the ability to use IDE and refactoring to support this greatly helps. Look at the sites on your JQuery list, and most are really web sites/ pages that are using JQuery to add some fancy effects or some manipulation of DOM - it doesn't identify, for example, how much of the site uses JQuery - whereas your GWT list is pure GWT applications on mostly the whole site; the lists are not really comparable in terms of functionality; I do though, get your point on why aren't IBM, Dell, BBC using GWT - the answer I suggest is three-fold a) These are (mostly) web sites not web applications and have lots of legacy content. They are going to possibly struggle to justify the benefit of GWT in comparison to cost already sunk, and a large number of them don't need to - why move to mechanised looms if your comfortable with your current cloth being produced? b) Look at the basic purpose of most of those sites, especially the featured ones; they are effectively brand advertising, and as such need to be indexed by search engines otherwise their return on investment is zero. JQuery is good at keeping that, as you generally load HTML which is then manipulated by JavaScript - this way, the search engine can index the HTML and the user sees a slightly flashier version. Sure, you can do a similar thing with GWT but not in such an elegant manner - but the point of GWT is to build applications not web sites. c) The teams behind it would probably need investement in retooling and training to use GWT and certainly given the first point above, this cost could outweigh any benefit. If you're building a new web application, then GWT is certainly a top candidate that should be investigated, why would you not want something that is promising to cut down your overall through life costs (apart from the cost of retooling your team)? I would also argue that with GWT you can build more complicated web applications simpler than you could with JQuery. For example, look at Chronoscope (http://timepedia.org/chronoscope/) and it's associated blog to see how it was developed and available in many many different forms from single GWT base. What would be fascinating to see is the results of an actual study on the comaprison of the development of a web application using several of the competing and complimentary libraries/toolkits/frameworks. So back to the first point, use the tool that is most appropriate for what has to be done, within the constraints you may have and the expectations users/client has. //Adam On 23 Nov, 07:42, adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure which people you're talking about, but I can't believe > that the people who head large projects like the ones mentioned in the > jQuery link don't update their knowledge of available tools and their > development status on a regular basis. I think the answer must lie > elsewhere. > > On Nov 22, 10:20 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > From what I've seen is that a lot of people looked at GWT in it's > > really early stages and never really thought "Hey, they're probably > > adding features and making everything work easier" so they don't end > > up looking back at it. > > > On Nov 22, 9:58 pm, adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I see herehttp://docs.jquery.com/Sites_Using_jQuerythatlotsof big > > > projects, most of which are probably led by some smart, deep-thinking, > > > open-minded individuals, are using jQuery and hand-written javascript. > > > I notice that this list of projects using > > > GWThttp://www.ociweb.com/mark/programming/GWT.html#WhoIsUsingItdoesn't > > > look as impressive. > > > > Why are leaders on big projects deciding to use tools other than GWT? > > > Do they have any good reasons to not use GWT? Should they use GWT? If > > > so, why? > > > > If this has already been covered in another post, please point me to > > > it; no need to reinvent the wheel. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@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-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
