On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Lukasz Mach <[email protected]> wrote: > (28.01.2012 23:33), Lex Berezhny wrote: >> I do not use that widget so it is hard for me to evaluate. But >> skimming the code, nothing particularly stands out as possibly being >> bad. >> >> Are you using it? Does it work for you? > > Yes, I wouldn't bother to write it if I's not neccesary for me.
:) > Ok, nobody told "nah, it's totally against pyjamas way of coding", I > will push it. good for you. > However, I saw in sibbling thread, that pyjamas should be "pure GWT port > to python". If it's true it's not. > Should pyjamas really pure gwt port to python, nothing more? absolutely not. a) it's impossible b) java is a shit language that places a massive burden on the developers, requiring that they duplicate vast amounts of code due to the lack of basic features such as multiple inheritance. there is _one_ feature which java has which python does not: strong type-checking of parameters. thomas wrote an emulation system for this (using decorators), but my concern with having that is an impact on performance, of going through two levels of indirection just to make a function call. so no - absolutely not. _however_, the majority of code *could* be ported from gwt.... it's just that there is so damn much of it that it'd be a full-time job evaluating everything. l.
