I've been doing a lot of JSF (Java Server Faces) work recently, which is different to GWT in implementation, but similar in that it seeks to abstract the pain points of web development away. In the case of JSF a common refrain is to claim it makes web development more like Swing/rich interface development. In broad terms, GWT's goal is probably not all that different.
Very generally main advantages: - makes rich web apps easy (it helps to understand HTTP, but is by no means necessary). - allows you to use generic development resources (i.e. I don't need to find developers who know a range of different technologies -- if I've got a Java guy/gal, that'll do) Disadvantages: - if a component/abstraction doesn't work as expected, debugging can be a massive pain - generated HTML is ugly and non-standards based. Hell, it's mostly table based. > You can't use sass without > already knowing css, but if you can write GWT without knowing javascript > then you may be running the risk of digging a very deep hole. Yup, this has been the biggest observed issue for me (for JSF)... it's not just knowing javascript that is an issue, but having the tools to get beneath the abstraction. I'd assume it's the same for GWT's compile-java-to-javascript process. Having said all that, there're are some nice things too. The event model, with multiple action end-points, is great, and the rendering life-cycle, converters and validators, all provide a good level of flexibility (again, in JSF). Cheers, Dave On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Lincoln Stoll<lst...@lstoll.net> wrote: > I'm assuming it is - in dev mode (hosted in their > browser) it is supposedly debuggable as java byte code, which is interesting. In prod, I'm not so sure. > But yeah, I totally agree. It seems to integrate with third party JS, so the > generated stuff can't be *that* hard to understand. > The main downside is that it is java project only. > On 22/06/2009, at 1:33 AM, Myles Byrne wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Lincoln Stoll <lst...@lstoll.net> wrote: >> >> I guess less time in dev, consistency in testing and language for >> development, potentially more efficient output, integration with existing >> code? >> I'm not using it at the moment, but in some ways it looks interesting. > > Seems reasonable. As long the js is debuggable. Having to learn js (and more > importantly, the GWT style of 'compiled' js) because the abstraction leaked > would be my main concern as a java developer. You can't use sass without > already knowing css, but if you can write GWT without knowing javascript > then you may be running the risk of digging a very deep hole. > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to rails-oceania@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rails-oceania+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
