On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:38:05 +0200, clay <[email protected]> wrote:
excitement or high level features or value, and it doesn't seem to be
getting much community interest. If you want to argue against JSF 2.0,
those are the reasons I would use.
JSF 1.0 was very different than 2.0, so it's meaningless to compare it.
Latest JSF are perfectly usable, indeed they are used much more than most
people think (banks use it very much) and there are people who like it for
tooling. I wouldn't call it such a bad thing. My point is that other
technologies are better from the simplicity point of view.
I've also used GWT. I would avoid that. First, it adds a large, slow
build
and tooling step.
Correct, but with Vaadin you save that step, even though by giving up with
some features.
Secondly, there is a huge difference between your Java
source and the generated JavaScript. Other JavaScript compiled languages
such as CoffeeScript or Dart or possibly TypeScript offer much lighter
and
transparent translation.
But what's the problem here? My take on this is that JS generated by those
tools is no more no less than bytecode. I don't read generated bytecode. I
only care that it works.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s.
"We make Java work. Everywhere."
http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - [email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
