Hi Rakesh, Thanks for your response. > Adam, did you even tryGWT?
As I said earlier in this thread, I've developed applications in GWT. My most recent one (still in development) is matchomat.com. This application has some rollover buttons, dialogs, form checking, gwt rpc, history, and it even uses gwt-coded jsonp to communicate with an erlang server. All of the js is written in GWT. I described the client- side architecture in the reply to Adam T earlier in this thread. I've also made a large pure-GWT-history app before. > created by jquery itself.gwt'slist you posted is not created by > google or thegwtteam. They should really post a list! > - Generated js is super-super fast and tiny(relatively)! You end up > writing fast and small apps. compare it with flex and or any other > toolkit of your choice. (btw, comparing it with lo level libs like > prototype.js is wrong) The javascript for matchomat, which is compiled in obfuscated mode, is around 160kb. I don't like having to wait at my browser for all this javascript to load. Take a look at Netflix or Facebook; very ajax-y and yet they seem to load instantaneously. I believe I could have hand- coded essentially identical functionality for matchomat with a smaller javascript file had I been using a js toolkit like jquery. Furthermore, Flex allows you to dynamically load modules -- I do this in langolab.com. Although GWT.runAsync is in the trunk, it hasn't been released yet. I have a friend who is on a team creating a b2b gwt app where the monolithic javascript file weighs in at over a megabyte. This is untenable for a public-facing app. > - Every thing is so modular and object oriented. you can write long > lasting apps and manage huge application easily. I respectfully disagree with you. First of all, to run my project in hosted mode I have to wait about 30 seconds for java->js compilation. This may not sound like a lot but I feel like it really interrupts my design->debug->design cycle. With hand-coded javascript, there is no need for this extra compilation step. In order to test my app on other browsers with GWT, I need to compile in web mode, which takes about 1-3 minutes on my very very fast machine. > - Creating reusable widgets is a snap. And that is what you do withgwtmost of > the time. Although creating them is a snap, as we noted earlier in this thread actually using them in an app where html is generated on the server (like, for SEO) can be a PITA, at least with all techniques that I think of. It must especially be a PITA with very large apps that consist of dozens or even hundreds of distinct pages, like the one I'm currently starting. I wonder if anyone else has some thoughts about how to ease the pain of using GWT with apps like these. > - Some really great features that are unique togwt: locale mgmt, > history token management, image bundle, exception handling and rpc > mechanism Thank you for reminding me of local mgmt, history, and the image bundle. You are right, these are really useful features. I think I might continue with GWT on account of these. > - Strongly typed java is always better compared to js. You end up > making less mistakes as 80% errors are resolved by eclipse as you type > your code. Thank you for reminding me of this also. This is a huge advantage. > - Never seen a better way of debugging my code. Firebug is pretty useful for debugging js. > - Listeners architecture(if you understand and implement correctly) is > a great tool to decouple your app widgets/classes and make them more > reusable. Great way of event handling! Well, actually I find it more natural to use anonymous functions in AS3 and Javascript. I find Java's anonymous classes to be a little bit clunky. Thanks again for your great reply. Adam On Nov 24, 9:05 am, rakesh wagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam, did you even tryGWT? > Because if you had developed a 3-4 screen application with server > connectivity you would have already answered your question. I will not > dogwt-jquery comparison here, but just few cents aboutgwtitself. > > That "who is using" list is incomplete. > I can bet you thatgwt'swho is using list(if honestly made) will be > bigger than any other ajax tech adaption. Jquery's adaption list is > created by jquery itself.gwt'slist you posted is not created by > google or thegwtteam. FYI, we have done more than 3(big) projects > successfully overt the past 2 years and we do not care to be part of > any such lists.GWTis more than a UI library, it is a paradigm shift in > developing > web applications. People who have spend there life in struts and other > similar web based framework will typically take a while to understand > this paradigm change. If you liked and respected swing and javascript > for what ever they are, you will probably like and understandgwtmuch > faster than some one who doesn't. Very fast, here are some basic > advantages that makegwta toolkit of choice: > - Google's beta releases are production quality! > - You get answers to your question within 24 hours from a great user > community. Like you just did for this thread! > - Apache, A great license, without any fine prints. > - Dozens of supporting projects, which makeGWTeven better. > - Check smartgwtor extgwtfor really rich widgets. > - Couplegwtwith spring and hibernate and with little plumbing you > are dealing with only java objects from client browser to the data > layer. > - A very small technology and tool stack required for the entire > project. > - Generated js is super-super fast and tiny(relatively)! You end up > writing fast and small apps. compare it with flex and or any other > toolkit of your choice. (btw, comparing it with lo level libs like > prototype.js is wrong) > - Every thing is so modular and object oriented. you can write long > lasting apps and manage huge application easily. > - Creating reusable widgets is a snap. And that is what you do withgwtmost of > the time. > - Some really great features that are unique togwt: locale mgmt, > history token management, image bundle, exception handling and rpc > mechanism > - I am yet to see a more elegant and easier way to communicate data > back and forth the server thengwt'srpc. You send a generic arraylist > to your client code. You cannot beat this! > - Strongly typed java is always better compared to js. You end up > making less mistakes as 80% errors are resolved by eclipse as you type > your code. > - Never seen a better way of debugging my code. > - Listeners architecture(if you understand and implement correctly) is > a great tool to decouple your app widgets/classes and make them more > reusable. Great way of event handling! > - Can keep going ... > all in allgwtrocks!! > Fine prints: There is a learning curve if you really want to build > long lasting production ready code(depends on your java experience and > understanding of swing, layouts, event handling etc). Elseuseone of > the ready to go widget libraries, try smartgwt. > > Rakesh Wagh > > On Nov 22, 8:58 pm, adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I see herehttp://docs.jquery.com/Sites_Using_jQuerythatlots of 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 > > usingGWThttp://www.ociweb.com/mark/programming/GWT.html#WhoIsUsingItdoesn't > > look as impressive. > > > Why are leaders on big projects deciding tousetools other thanGWT? > > Do they have any good reasons to notuseGWT? Should theyuseGWT? If > > so, why? > > > If this has already been covered in another post, please point me to > > it; no need to reinvent the --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
