You dont see the relevance of Google making GWT opensource ? Use the right tool for the right job. Why use GWT for a small app ?
This is the same for Flex. I see people using Flash/Flex where they should not then complain about performance. If you are not targeting AIR or the Desktop browser you should not even think about Flex/Flash as an option. That s the way it is(for now). Now concerning compiling Flex/AS3 to JS i m not a fan of that. There s nothing wrong with Flex as the way it is now. If i want to do mobile webapps Flex is def not the framework i will think about. Regardless of it it compiles to JS or not. 2012/8/30 Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com> > From my experience, using it for a simple site or a small app would > possibly create overbloated js indeed. But when it comes to middle or large > scale apps the code is heavily optimized and the end result makes sense in > terms of size and complexity. > > Regarding Google making the framework fully open source, that is correct, > but I fail to see the relevance. If anything, this is one more similarity > with Flex in Apache. > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Carlos Rovira < > carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote: > > > AFAIK Google has made the same with GWT as Adobe with Flex. But GWT > > has the problem to generate overbloated JS code... > > > > 2012/8/30 Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>: > > > Hello guys, I'm following all the topics here but I post rarely because > > > most of the times someone else has said something that I agree with > 100%. > > > > > > This time though, I was trying to think about similar technologies > which > > > are either compiled to js or they are converted in js in some other > way. > > > So I thought about GWT. The appproach google has taken with it is very > > > similar to Flex. They even have a skin architecture equivalent. > > > What I'm trying to say is, what if we could achieve something similar. > > They > > > seem to be translating Java to JS without a problem because they > exclude > > > Java features that are not compatible. > > > It's a small Java subset, I'll give you that, but developing in Java > and > > > creating skins just like in Flex is way more interesting and agile > > compared > > > to pure HTML and JS. > > > > > > As far as I can tell, both languages are not that different (Java and > > AS3). > > > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Om <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Michael A. Labriola < > > >> labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> > >Can you please elaborate? > > >> > > > >> > >The point I was trying to make was that HTML5 language itself is > not > > >> > designed to be extensible. Using Javascript does not really count > (in > > >> this > > >> > >context) > > >> > > > >> > >As far as using the DOM, I assume you mean the Microdata format. > > This > > >> > results in non-standard HTML most of the time and is not supported > > across > > >> > browsers. And it deals more with extending data semantics and >not > > >> > functional extension. > > >> > > > >> > In flex, IMO, we worried too much about extension and not enough > about > > >> > composition. > > >> > > >> > > >> I think that is besides the point. There is nothing in MXML that > > prevents > > >> composition. It is just that the current set of Flex components are > > built > > >> like that. We can fix that given time and effort. There is no need > to > > >> structurally modify MXML to achieve this. > > >> > > >> Whereas with HTML(5) there is nothing in the standard that will let us > > do > > >> specialization (via inheritance or composition) I cannot dream up new > > >> elements and expect a browser to understand it out of the box. > > >> > > >> > > >> > So long as I have a good series of patterns (and the discipline to > > follow > > >> > them) then I can look at the HTML DOM elements as the Atoms of the > > >> universe > > >> > and assembly them with some bonds (JavaScript) to make an element. > And > > >> then > > >> > in turn assemble those to make any application. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Right, we need Javascript to do this kind of extension to HTML. To do > > this > > >> in the Flex world would mean that we either > > >> > > >> * Bring in JS as a language we support in Flex > > >> or > > >> * Keep Flex as it is (i.e. Actionscript based) and have a AS to JS > > >> translation layer. > > >> > > >> The latter is a better approach because of various reasons ranging > from > > JS > > >> not being a real OOP language, no package organization possible, etc > (we > > >> all know why AS is better than JS) > > >> > > >> I think being able to code in MXML and Actionscript would be a key > goal > > of > > >> this cross-compilation effort, right? Unless we want to fundamentally > > >> change what 'Flex' means. > > >> > > >> > > >> > So, the key is not trying to extend the Atom but trying to assemble > > it in > > >> > useful ways and allow those to be extended or recomposed. So far, I > > have > > >> > found few limitations of this approach and often times ended up much > > >> > happier. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I definitely agree with you on this. But again, this requires > > Javascript > > >> to assemble things. My above points still hold good as well. > > >> > > >> > > >> > Mike > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > >> Om > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Nick Tsitlakidis, > > > > > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD. > > > www.perfectedz.com > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > Director de Tecnología > > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > F: +34 912 35 57 77 > > CODEOSCOPIC S.A. > > Avd. del General Perón, 32 > > Planta 10, Puertas P-Q > > 28020 Madrid > > > > > > -- > Nick Tsitlakidis, > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD. > www.perfectedz.com >
