In one of the threads on this list, someone mentioned that the latest GWT compiler generated javascript code that was about 200kb while the equivalent functionality writen in pyjamas and compiled to javascript was about 5Mb. Where is the bloat happenning in pyjamas? Is it the python-to-javascript compiler OR is it caused by an inefficient translation of the GWT widget set from Java to Python? Sarvi
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:29:56 PM UTC-8, Sarvi Shanmugham wrote: > > What s the difference between the pyjaco and the pyjs compilers. > > From what I can read on the various blogs, the pyjs compiler is more full > featured but I hear has whole laundry list of problems one of the bloggers > had posted. He had also compared other alternatives as well. > > I also notice that pyjaco was listed as much better than the pyjs compiler > in these areas. > > Plus pyjaco seems to be active development. > > I understand pyjamas is much more than just the pyjs compiler. > > Questions: > 1. Does pyjaco generate more efficient in speed and size? > 2. Can the pyjaco compiler replace the pyjs compiler and if not what > would be missing. That would leave pyjamas to focus on the gwt widget sets > in python as well as pyjd. Does this make sense. > 3. As of now the pyjs tool and widgets set produces very large > JavaScript code. Someone mentioned 30M for hello world program > uncompressed. What are the root causes for this bloat and is there any work > happening in this area. > > Why do I ask. > 1. I plan to use pyjamas and/or pyjaco and find this approach to > development exciting. > 2. I have a very small budget that I plan to use for improvements to > the toolset. In my opinion on things like efficiency of the generated code > as well as gwt version upgrade. And have junior a engineer from India that > I am funding that I was thinking of assigning to this task. Don't expect > magic from him, he is know Luke or Kees Bos but I expect him to learn and > contribute in whatever way possible. > > Thanks > Sarvi > > --
