Thoughts on Google Web Tools?

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Josh Russo, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. Josh Russo

    Josh Russo Guest

    I know the general thoughts surrounding most web frameworks, being
    largely unnecessary and at times producing problems of their own. With
    that in mind, what are people's thoughts on GWT? In case you don't
    know it auto-generates all of the JS and HTML. You do everything in
    Java.

    One of the big benefits to this is that you can more easily unit test
    your interfaces. Of course you are trusting Google to produce good JS,
    but this really isn't a new paradigm. Other languages/frameworks have
    done the same for C and C++. You generally lose flexibility but it's
    usually the more arcane functionality that is lost.

    Personally, I'm just starting to research GWT but it seems really
    intriguing.

    What are your thoughts?
     
    Josh Russo, Aug 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Josh Russo

    David Mark Guest

    On Aug 5, 7:12 pm, Josh Russo <> wrote:
    > I know the general thoughts surrounding most web frameworks, being
    > largely unnecessary and at times producing problems of their own.


    The main thought is that most GP frameworks that exist today are
    demonstrably awful (e.g. Google Closure).

    > With
    > that in mind, what are people's thoughts on GWT? In case you don't
    > know it auto-generates all of the JS and HTML. You do everything in
    > Java.


    Sounds awful.

    >
    > One of the big benefits to this is that you can more easily unit test
    > your interfaces.


    I don't see how that follows.

    > Of course you are trusting Google to produce good JS,
    > but this really isn't a new paradigm.


    The age of the paradigm notwithstanding, trusting Google to produce
    good JS is like trusting a million monkeys to produce good
    Shakespeare.

    > Other languages/frameworks have
    > done the same for C and C++.


    That's a whole different ballgame (and presumably features better
    players than Google's JS developers).

    > You generally lose flexibility but it's
    > usually the more arcane functionality that is lost.
    >
    > Personally, I'm just starting to research GWT but it seems really
    > intriguing.
    >
    > What are your thoughts?


    Don't.
     
    David Mark, Aug 8, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 2010-08-05 04:12 PM, Josh Russo wrote:
    > I know the general thoughts surrounding most web frameworks, being
    > largely unnecessary and at times producing problems of their own. With
    > that in mind, what are people's thoughts on GWT? In case you don't
    > know it auto-generates all of the JS and HTML. You do everything in
    > Java.
    >
    > One of the big benefits to this is that you can more easily unit test
    > your interfaces. Of course you are trusting Google to produce good JS,
    > but this really isn't a new paradigm. Other languages/frameworks have
    > done the same for C and C++. You generally lose flexibility but it's
    > usually the more arcane functionality that is lost.
    >


    I always give my stock recommendation to carefully review the source
    code of any third party code, and offer the code guidelines document to
    help with that:
    <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/code-guidelines/>

    Regarding what little I know of GWT:
    * The overall design is based on using browser detection to send
    browser-specific JS (or try to).
    * You're stuck writing it in Java, unless you use the "JSNI" or
    "native", which still requires editing and compiling java

    I can't say anything about the quality of the JS code because I have not
    reviewed it recently but the overall strategy of browser detection is an
    architectural mistake.


    I have noticed that a lot of Google apps use global identifiers (DOM tab
    in Firebug).

    > Personally, I'm just starting to research GWT but it seems really
    > intriguing.
    >


    I thought so when I first heard of it. I quickly changed my mind after
    looking into it.

    > What are your thoughts?


    The problems with browser detection have been discussed to death.
    There's even an article on it in the notes:
    <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/detect-browser/>

    The idea of sending browser-specific code, streamlined for each browser
    sounds good but it doesn't provide clean abstractions of the problem of
    dynamic environment. Instead, it couples the code to tool and uses an
    unrelated inference (User Agent). That strategy will fail in cases, to
    identify the browser and can result in cases where the user has a
    perfectly good browser that could have worked, but didn't pass the
    browser whitelist check.

    I noticed that the author of GWT actually advocated the practice of
    global variables and actually went on to provide a reason that it helped
    performance.
    <http://blog.j15r.com/2009/08/where-should-i-define-javascript.html>

    But actually global identifiers don't help performance -- they hurt it:
    <http://groups.google.bg/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/566395fc193eb4f1/>

    Now don't know if the practice of using global variables made it into
    GWT or not, but I do see a lot of globals in Google js and the author
    advocating something like that is something to be concerned about.

    The browser detection-based architecture is the most obvious deterrent.
    --
    Garrett
     
    Garrett Smith, Aug 8, 2010
    #3
  4. Josh Russo

    David Guest

    On 08/06/2010 09:12 AM, Josh Russo wrote:
    > I know the general thoughts surrounding most web frameworks, being
    > largely unnecessary and at times producing problems of their own. With
    > that in mind, what are people's thoughts on GWT? In case you don't
    > know it auto-generates all of the JS and HTML. You do everything in
    > Java.
    >
    > One of the big benefits to this is that you can more easily unit test
    > your interfaces. Of course you are trusting Google to produce good JS,
    > but this really isn't a new paradigm. Other languages/frameworks have
    > done the same for C and C++. You generally lose flexibility but it's
    > usually the more arcane functionality that is lost.
    >
    > Personally, I'm just starting to research GWT but it seems really
    > intriguing.
    >
    > What are your thoughts?


    If you need a generator look at Pyjamas also:
    (http://pyjamas.sourceforge.net/). It's Python based. Now that has
    to be better.
     
    David, Aug 18, 2010
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Namratha Shah \(Nasha\)
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    614
    Namratha Shah \(Nasha\)
    Nov 23, 2004
  2. Namratha Shah \(Nasha\)

    Article : Security Tools Part -- 2 (.Net FrameWork Tools Series)

    Namratha Shah \(Nasha\), Nov 23, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net Datagrid Control
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    210
    Namratha Shah \(Nasha\)
    Nov 23, 2004
  3. Namratha Shah \(Nasha\)

    Article : Security Tools Part -- 2 (.Net FrameWork Tools Series)

    Namratha Shah \(Nasha\), Nov 23, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net Mobile
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    202
    Namratha Shah \(Nasha\)
    Nov 23, 2004
  4. Michael Neumann
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    451
    Mark Volkmann
    Mar 14, 2007
  5. martinig
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    193
    martinig
    Jul 2, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page