I wouldn't say "contradiction", I believe all aspects mentioned (inertia/retooling/SEO/experience/through life cost/future development cost/others) all combine to inform the decision of what technology to eventually use. In certain circumstances some aspects will weigh higher than others.
Your example is a good case in point - did GWT naturally fit your design? How easy was it to do, how managed do you feel the resulting code is, how much easier would it be for you to have done it in JQuery? How much do you think your design was influenced by thinking of a GWT application as a multi-page app as opposed to a single page one? How much more complex is your application to some of those examples shown using JQuery? There are many questions that feed into stuff, which makes it hard to say why one is better than another. Though, if I'm going to build a complex application from scratch, then I would evaluate other technologies on a basis of why would I use it instead of GWT as I think GWT should be the starting point that others need to reach. Right now I would say the world is JavaScript focussed and there are many JavaScript coders out there, and hence the natural choice is JavaScript libraries. As we push the boundaries on complexity, so we need better and better tools/environments etc, and I believe GWT is well placed for when complexity catches up. Just for interest, there is a JQuery library for GWT: http://code.google.com/p/gwtquery/ //Adam On 23 Nov, 16:16, adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam T, > > Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful explanation. There appears > to be a contradiction running through the thread of your explanation > and I'm wondering if you or anyone else would like to comment on it. > You write: > > > 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. > > This seems to imply that the awkwardness of using GWT with > "traditional" web sites -- ones whose separate pages are requested > from a server -- may be a good reason to choose non-GWT tools for > them. This would mean that the creators of the sites listed on the > jQuery site are not refraining from using GWT on account of inertia or > the cost/benefit ratio of training and retooling, as you suggest > elsewhere in your reply. Rather they would be using the result of a > decision-making process that, given the necessity of SEO as a premise, > concludes it's necessary to create a web site rather than a web > application and chooses a non-GWT javascript solution on account of > its relative elegance. > > I've actually created web sites (again, separate html pages generated > on server) using GWT. My strategy has been to include a javascript > variable in a script block on each page, the string value of which > corresponds to an Enum defined in GWT-generated code. As a given page > loads, that variable is read by a JSNI call in my EntryPoint and, in a > long switch based on the value of the Enum, a PageView subclass is > instantiated. The PageView -- which is coded in GWT, of course -- in > turn widgetizes parts of the html or generates widgets to insert into > html placeholders. It also instantiates a PageController subclass, > again coded in GWT. The way I see it, I am a creating a web app, > albeit one whose execution environment (i.e. html content) is > constructed differently by my server-side JSP code on each page load. > It's been a few years since I've created a hand-coded Javascript app, > but I think I'm going to give it a shot. Although this doesn't really > amount to a study, I would be very happy to thoughtfully analyze the > results and post them here. > > Thanks again for your very complete response, > Adam > > On Nov 23, 3:37 am, Adam T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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_jQuerythatlotsofbig > > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
