PDA

View Full Version : I've read this...are u agree with him?



iaio81
12 Nov 2009, 3:38 AM
http://www.cforcoding.com/2009/10/lost-in-translation-or-why-gwt-isnt.html


I'm developing with GWT-EXT and i'm wooried about the part where he wrote that ext-gwt is a bad libray......

Animal
12 Nov 2009, 3:52 AM
I have to say I agree.

Being able to add properties and methods to objects is so cool. Functions as first class objects is so cool (You just have to remember what scope to invoke them in!)

iaio81
12 Nov 2009, 3:57 AM
Sorry, but the article is critic towards ext gwt....why are you agree with him if you are a volunteer of Ext JS?

Animal
12 Nov 2009, 4:12 AM
He's critical of pulling client side development into the server, and generating code to run on the client. And big abstraction layers to achieve this.

And I agree. It's just not necessary.

iaio81
12 Nov 2009, 4:13 AM
Ah ok....and why according to you he defines EXTGWT terribly bad library?

httpdotcom
12 Nov 2009, 5:22 AM
His comment:


On Widgets and Maturity
I’ve programmed with GWT. The widget selection is woeful. The standard GWT widgets look awful, even amateurish. There are some third-party options but ExtGWT is a shockingly bad library. SmartGWT looks like a better alternative (and is actually a community effort rather than a split GPL/commercial mish-mash from someone who simply doesn’t understand Java Generics).


seems to be more of an indictment of the widget libraries and licensing model than it does the product itself.

monzonj
12 Nov 2009, 11:57 AM
I had a lot of fun reading the comments. Oh, people are evil! :D

The guy doesn't seem to know much about what he talks. He compares GXT and SmartGWT, saying that the last is a "better alternative"... I don't think so. SmartGWT is a wrapper to SmartClient Ajax API while GXT provide pure Java code pruning.

But I agree about he license. I don't think GXT is prepared at the moment for becoming a product you can charge for. It still have a long way to go. too many bugs and it really need the support of the community to report and correct bugs. If people could get access to the SVN and participate in the project it would grow faster and healthier.

micgala
13 Nov 2009, 6:03 AM
But I agree about he license. I don't think GXT is prepared at the moment for becoming a product you can charge for. It still have a long way to go. too many bugs and it really need the support of the community to report and correct bugs. If people could get access to the SVN and participate in the project it would grow faster and healthier.

I agree with you here.

Gxt is not yet ready to have the same terms of ext-js.
This monthly releases just for subscribers is just not right (at least for now).

cletus
5 Dec 2009, 6:02 PM
I had a lot of fun reading the comments. Oh, people are evil! :D

The guy doesn't seem to know much about what he talks. He compares GXT and SmartGWT, saying that the last is a "better alternative"... I don't think so. SmartGWT is a wrapper to SmartClient Ajax API while GXT provide pure Java code pruning.

But I agree about he license. I don't think GXT is prepared at the moment for becoming a product you can charge for. It still have a long way to go. too many bugs and it really need the support of the community to report and correct bugs. If people could get access to the SVN and participate in the project it would grow faster and healthier.

Speaking as the author...

GXT and SmartGWT are only similar in that they:

1. Are GWT libraries; and
2. Are based on pre-existing JS libraries.

I did non-trivial development with GXT. SmartGWT I never used in anger. I called SmartGWT more promising because:

1. It has an LGPL license. As opposed to a dual-license, this means you'll actually get community support and development; and
2. When I (briefly) looked at SmartGWT it seemed to be reasonably feature complete (compared to SmartClient) whereas GXT seems to lag more behind ExtJS.

Oh let me be clear on another thing: in no way should you take my criticism of GXT (which I stand by) as making any kind of comment on ExtJS. Apart from one being based on the other, they are otherwise completely different beasts.

I just had a quick scan of the GXT docs. I used 1.1/1.2 and it's up to 2.1 now. I was going to point out the TreeModel class as an example of horrific use of generics but it is not a parameterized type. I had to go back and check and in 1.2 it was:

interface TradeModel<T extends TreeModel>

If you took that approach to conclusion it led to some pretty horrific code and there were plenty of other examples like that. So perhaps Daryl has learnt his lesson. I can't really say though.

There were other examples as well, like the way buttons were constructed from multiple images. That and several other things made it incredibly difficult and tedious to change the theme.

deanna
9 Dec 2009, 5:56 PM
SmartGWT you get NONE of the advantages of having a Java optimized precompiled client code. SmartGWT is a GWT type wrapper around a js library. GXT is a native GWT Java code that has all the advantages of optimization and brower targeting and resource bundles, and on demand loading (GWT 2.0 )

TheBuzzer
11 Dec 2009, 12:03 PM
SmartGWT you get NONE of the advantages of having a Java optimized precompiled client code. SmartGWT is a GWT type wrapper around a js library. GXT is a native GWT Java code that has all the advantages of optimization and brower targeting and resource bundles, and on demand loading (GWT 2.0 )


however, smartgwt javascript is targeted to different browsers. GXT will hope gwt does a good job in optimizing the code.

deanna
11 Dec 2009, 12:46 PM
however, smartgwt javascript is targeted to different browsers. GXT will hope gwt does a good job in optimizing the code.

I have a LOT of faith in gwt doing a great job in targeting browsers. If you ever look under the covers and watch any of the google io or google campfire videos you will see the great trouble they go through to optimize it.

dwelch
16 Dec 2009, 9:59 AM
To the author:

Sounds like you wrote a pretty intense rant on an older version of the framework. I guess people would be pretty upset if I started blasting Windows because Windows 98 had a horrible user interface library :">

Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid fan of scripting languages and I see the argument you're trying to make. I do have a question though: you said you've done *non-trivial* development using GXT.. what was the size / scope of your project?