Comments on: Giles Screencast on Seaside and Rails http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/seaside/giles-screencast-on-seaside-and-rails/ thoughts on Smalltalk and programming in general... Fri, 16 May 2008 05:29:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Mark Miller http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/seaside/giles-screencast-on-seaside-and-rails/#comment-1594 Mark Miller Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:33:03 +0000 http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/seaside/giles-screencast-on-seaside-and-rails/#comment-1594 To Jonathan: Seaside handles AJAX just fine. No need for GWT. To Ramon: GWT is the Google Web Toolkit. It's an AJAX development tool. It allows developers to write AJAX code totally in Java. The tool translates the client-oriented Java code into the appropriate Javascript to carry out the desired actions. It may generate server side Java code to receive AJAX requests as well. I'm not sure about that part. I've only read about it. If GWT is anything like what I've seen with other AJAX frameworks, then Seaside is still better in terms of the lines of code you have to write. I haven't tried it yet so I can't say whether it's definitively better. One of the challenges any AJAX framework has to deal with is different Javascript working on different browsers. By the way, I liked the screencasts by Giles. He presents things in an easy to follow, appealing way, and has a sense of humor, which is nice. To Jonathan:

Seaside handles AJAX just fine. No need for GWT.

To Ramon:

GWT is the Google Web Toolkit. It’s an AJAX development tool. It allows developers to write AJAX code totally in Java. The tool translates the client-oriented Java code into the appropriate Javascript to carry out the desired actions. It may generate server side Java code to receive AJAX requests as well. I’m not sure about that part. I’ve only read about it. If GWT is anything like what I’ve seen with other AJAX frameworks, then Seaside is still better in terms of the lines of code you have to write. I haven’t tried it yet so I can’t say whether it’s definitively better. One of the challenges any AJAX framework has to deal with is different Javascript working on different browsers.

By the way, I liked the screencasts by Giles. He presents things in an easy to follow, appealing way, and has a sense of humor, which is nice.

]]> By: Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/seaside/giles-screencast-on-seaside-and-rails/#comment-1529 Ramon Leon Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:19:04 +0000 http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/seaside/giles-screencast-on-seaside-and-rails/#comment-1529 Unless it's a continuations based server, I don't think it allows desktop style applications (i.e. insanely complex) to be written. By that I mean, if you have to deal with the request response cycle at all, then it doesn't qualify in the way I meant. Unless it’s a continuations based server, I don’t think it allows desktop style applications (i.e. insanely complex) to be written. By that I mean, if you have to deal with the request response cycle at all, then it doesn’t qualify in the way I meant.

]]> By: Jonathan Aquino http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/seaside/giles-screencast-on-seaside-and-rails/#comment-1528 Jonathan Aquino Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:02:05 +0000 http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/seaside/giles-screencast-on-seaside-and-rails/#comment-1528 "having the power to write desktop style applications (i.e. insanely complex) on the web might be something worth having" GWT is a mainstream answer to this question (haven't tried it myself). “having the power to write desktop style applications (i.e. insanely complex) on the web might be something worth having”

GWT is a mainstream answer to this question (haven’t tried it myself).

]]>