-1 for moving away from GWT. Gwt really does make heavily optimized Javascript - you would be hard pressed to beat it by hand written Javascript in all but small projects. Gwt starts fairly big for small things, but scales *very* well. The fact that the current Client is a bit heavy and messy isn't really gwts fault, imho.
Gwt *is* just HTML5 + JS at the end of the day. Its simply an alternative route to make it that saves a fair bit of work. Its certainly allowed my small company to make a few web apps that we wouldn't have had the resources to do directly in Javascript. That said, in order to enable a wide range of clients (not all web based), eventually the advantage of directly sharing code between client and server directly will vanish anyway. The reference client and server will need to be completely separate entities code wise. Also, on a more personally level, I can help with gwt clients so you will get a extra coder ;) On 12 June 2013 23:20, Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado <v...@ourproject.org> wrote: > El 12/06/13 12:26, Paulo Pires escribió: >> Why not simply try to improve what we already have, by modularizing >> stuff, separate server from web client, documenting and providing >> ways of people to develop their products on top of Wave? I for one am >> not interested at all in current web client functionality, but rather >> in the wave-model and OT. >> >> Also, moving things from a strong-typed language and powerful >> framework like Java to Python or Ruby or Node.js or whatever you >> believe is the new kid on the block, seems a little nonsense to me. >> People just don't understand Wave internals and won't be able to >> implement it whatever technologies you choose. Also, writing things >> from scratch seem a little far fetched, as I doubt anyone will be >> able to take on that task for the medium/long term. >> >> Please don't take me wrong here, but I've seen plenty discussion like >> this in other big projects and the result was ultimately the same, >> too much talk, no code. I wouldn't like this to happen to Wave. >> > > I agree totally with Paulo. > > BR, > > Vicente
