Comments on: Google Web Toolkit and ASP.NET? http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/ C#, ASP.NET, Google, Remoting, AJAX, Silverlight, Web Development Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:12:42 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Shamol http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/comment-page-1/#comment-9860 Shamol Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:52:30 +0000 http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/#comment-9860 I think Asp.net MVC plus GWT on the client side will be a killer combination. with MVC we can easily translate backend busniess logic into a REST api can be consumed by any client (and GWT). that is equally helpfull. Or we can simply follow the Ajax pros model and directly ganerate client side subs for our Controllers. which we can wrap in GWT helper classes. I am doing that in my next project. GWT rocks.. feel sad for Script#.. i was really hoping it will standup to GWT. On another note. visual web gui i dont like their approach. sending every event though wire seem little freaky to me. Shamol I think Asp.net MVC plus GWT on the client side will be a killer combination.
with MVC we can easily translate backend busniess logic into a REST api can be consumed by any client (and GWT). that is equally helpfull. Or we can simply follow the Ajax pros model and directly ganerate client side subs for our Controllers. which we can wrap in GWT helper classes.
I am doing that in my next project. GWT rocks.. feel sad for Script#.. i was really hoping it will standup to GWT.

On another note. visual web gui i dont like their approach. sending every event though wire seem little freaky to me.

Shamol

]]> By: dbardi http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/comment-page-1/#comment-7932 dbardi Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:29:39 +0000 http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/#comment-7932 An elegant alternative to both GWT and Ajax.Net is Visual WebGUI by Gizmox. (www.visualwebgui.com). It handles all the client side update for you and allows .Net developers to develop web applications as if developing WinForm applications. An elegant alternative to both GWT and Ajax.Net is Visual WebGUI by Gizmox.

(www.visualwebgui.com).

It handles all the client side update for you and allows .Net developers to develop web applications as if developing WinForm applications.

]]> By: Baloodevil http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/comment-page-1/#comment-6338 Baloodevil Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:02:20 +0000 http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/#comment-6338 Interesting topic. I have a .NET application and am rewriting the web interface to it. I had used ASP.NET web forms and 3rd party controls from Telerik. I found them to be powerful. However they are bulky, especially since they use AJAX.NET which requires a large javascript download. Not to mention that web forms are only 'slightly compatible' with MVC are not in the spirit of MVC and unit testing. So I started rewriting the web UI using jquery and ASP.NET MVC... Until I read about Google Web Toolkit. The concept of writing web UI in a higher level language like Java, that then compiles to Javascript is too hard to pass up. I have complex UI requirements and muddling with Javascript by hand, no matter how great the Javascript library is, is daunting. So my question is, can I use GWT to access my server side .NET library? I would think this is possible, but can anyone who has done this give some tips? I would still have to write my web UI in Java using one of their MVC frameworks, which will have a significant learning curve, but at least I won't have to port my entire application code to Java. Interesting topic. I have a .NET application and am rewriting the web interface to it. I had used ASP.NET web forms and 3rd party controls from Telerik. I found them to be powerful. However they are bulky, especially since they use AJAX.NET which requires a large javascript download. Not to mention that web forms are only ‘slightly compatible’ with MVC are not in the spirit of MVC and unit testing. So I started rewriting the web UI using jquery and ASP.NET MVC… Until I read about Google Web Toolkit. The concept of writing web UI in a higher level language like Java, that then compiles to Javascript is too hard to pass up. I have complex UI requirements and muddling with Javascript by hand, no matter how great the Javascript library is, is daunting. So my question is, can I use GWT to access my server side .NET library? I would think this is possible, but can anyone who has done this give some tips? I would still have to write my web UI in Java using one of their MVC frameworks, which will have a significant learning curve, but at least I won’t have to port my entire application code to Java.

]]> By: Idaho House http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/comment-page-1/#comment-4398 Idaho House Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:36:08 +0000 http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/#comment-4398 I have used both (ASP.NET and GWT). I can tell you that Google has it dead on with GWT. There is no way in hell I want to see another line of Javascript and if I have to sell my soul to do that , I happily will. It is time to move beyond this childish computer science mentality that one has to be able to understand the lower lifeform languages like JavaScript, C, and now more and more c++. Nikhil, get busy, compete with GWT and produce a product that is a direct competitor and quit whining about your need to debug javascript. I have used both (ASP.NET and GWT). I can tell you that Google has it dead on with GWT. There is no way in hell I want to see another line of Javascript and if I have to sell my soul to do that , I happily will.

It is time to move beyond this childish computer science mentality that one has to be able to understand the lower lifeform languages like JavaScript, C, and now more and more c++.

Nikhil, get busy, compete with GWT and produce a product that is a direct competitor and quit whining about your need to debug javascript.

]]> By: Nikhil Kothari http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Nikhil Kothari Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:20:44 +0000 http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/#comment-4 Andrei, sorry, didn't mean to imply there was something wrong in your post. As far as larger team/more resources on GWT - that is obviously completely true, and has large impact on depth of the framework. I too sometimes wish that script# was a larger project. On the debugging front, I completely agree having the source-level debugging is a great plus, but I also think you need the ability to debug in the target runtime environment, i.e. that of a script engine in the target browser(s). I am not sure how much of GWT's generated output is conducive to script debugging. Given I didn't have resources to do the debugger part of the story, I spent a lot more focus on getting the generated debug flavor script to be debuggable, look and feel like hand-written script to match the original c# source. Andrei, sorry, didn’t mean to imply there was something wrong in your post.

As far as larger team/more resources on GWT – that is obviously completely true, and has large impact on depth of the framework. I too sometimes wish that script# was a larger project.

On the debugging front, I completely agree having the source-level debugging is a great plus, but I also think you need the ability to debug in the target runtime environment, i.e. that of a script engine in the target browser(s). I am not sure how much of GWT’s generated output is conducive to script debugging. Given I didn’t have resources to do the debugger part of the story, I spent a lot more focus on getting the generated debug flavor script to be debuggable, look and feel like hand-written script to match the original c# source.

]]> By: Andrei Alecu http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Andrei Alecu Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:16:09 +0000 http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/#comment-3 Please don't get me wrong, I'm very thankful for your work on Script#, and I'm sure a lot of people are. I'm just saying it would be great though if it got some real support from Microsoft in the future because I believe it has huge potential. There are a couple of things at which GWT is a little bit ahead of right now, being better supported, and developed by a bigger team, but I'm pretty sure that Script# can do everything GWT does. It just lacks some of the 'Controls' that GWT has, and debugging in GWT is a little bit simpler because you can run the Java code directly instead of relying on the browser. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m very thankful for your work on Script#, and I’m sure a lot of people are. I’m just saying it would be great though if it got some real support from Microsoft in the future because I believe it has huge potential.

There are a couple of things at which GWT is a little bit ahead of right now, being better supported, and developed by a bigger team, but I’m pretty sure that Script# can do everything GWT does.

It just lacks some of the ‘Controls’ that GWT has, and debugging in GWT is a little bit simpler because you can run the Java code directly instead of relying on the browser.

]]> By: Nikhil Kothari http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Nikhil Kothari Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:17:22 +0000 http://www.codedblog.com/2007/08/29/google-web-toolkit-and-c/#comment-2 Just to be clear on a couple of things: 1. Script# does provide Visual Studio support - you use the C# editor, intellisense, and all the rest of the VS goodies when writing your c# code. 2. Script# provides a framework that lets you create and consume RPC/REST services... or you can work at a lower level using the raw XMLHTTP object as you see fit. Just to be clear on a couple of things:

1. Script# does provide Visual Studio support – you use the C# editor, intellisense, and all the rest of the VS goodies when writing your c# code.

2. Script# provides a framework that lets you create and consume RPC/REST services… or you can work at a lower level using the raw XMLHTTP object as you see fit.

]]>