Related
Is there (or does it make sense for it to be) a reactive-banana over webkitgtk3's DOM? Originally I was looking for reactive-banana-gtk but then realized the widgets were to rigid and I saw no easy way to define new widgets from Haskell. DOM together with css on the other hand could satisfy my needs. Hope this justifies the use case.
What would I need to do to get reactive-banana working over Graphics.UI.Gtk.WebKit.DOM?
I haven't found anything on hackage, github, nor by googling it.
My library Threepenny-GUI is a GUI library that uses the web browser as a display, so you can use HTML+JavaScript from Haskell. This may be what you are looking for.
It has FRP built-in as well. (It doesn't depend on reactive-banana just yet, but I expect to change this in a future release.)
Besides the obvious differences between JavaScript and Java, what are the relevant differences in using either SmartClient or SmartGWT?
SmartGWT is the GWT wrapper for SmartClient, which, as you say, means that you're able to write your SmartGWT app using java.
From my experience the only difference that matters when you're programming is that the GWT wrapper is a bit more restrictive than using the js components directly. For example, programmatically scrolling a TreeGrid from java is hell, since the body of the underlying table (that you need to get at in order to scroll the blasted thing) is not exposed through SmartGWT, while it of course is easily reachable from js.
Overall I wouldn't base the choice between the js components and the gwt wrapper soley on these differences, but I would look at other factors in your project. Which techniques are you most comfortable with? How much custimization are you planning on doing?
In my case, code maintainability.
We are a Python house. But for client-side code we opt for GWT, initially with GXT, but now with SmartGWT.
We don't like Java, but we don't like JS much more, Order, maintain libraries for several widgets, extends objects to give custom functionality, etc. between doing this in JS or Java, the option was obvious, Java side. We write reusable components here, and now we write very minimal code for client side, only reuse components and use REST to comunicate with ours Python backends.
We know that SmartGWT is more verbose than SmartClient, but, with Netbeans autocompletion (some coleagues here use Eclipse) we have direct access to every method, documented, instead to go to the showcase or google every time that we need to test and try new functionality.
SmartGWT provides you the advantage that you may use powerful editors.
You can debug your own code easily (however it's not very helpful for diving into the smartclient code itself).
You have all the auto completion stuff of eclipse/netbeans at hand. When starting to work with SmartClient/Gwt it helps you find the things you are looking for because the editor can list you classes or the available methods and some basic documentation what the class/method actually does. Saves you a lot of time crawling through the docs
Banang : API's to access ListGrid / TreeGrid body are now exposed in Smart GWT.
We chose to use Javascript (no SmartGWT) ... I prefer it that way, although some of our team members (newer to Javascript) would have preferred the SmartGWT way. Both have their pros and cons :
One of the advantages of using SmartGWT, is that you get to have compile time errors since everything gets compiled first by the Java compiler, before it gets rendered to Javascript.
One of the drawbacks of SmartGWT, is that it doesn't expose the full underlying Javascript Smartclient API. This means, if you want to do more advanced stuff, you might end up needing to do it in Javascript anyways.
Another drawback of SmartGWT, productivity wise, is that every single change you do and want to test, needs to go thru the painful Java EE compile/deploy process, whereas if you do it in Javascript, you can alter client side code faster by changing .js files directly without the need for the whole compile/deploy process.
SmartGWT is based on java code and when compiled it transforms it into java script, is a
heavy since it transforms java code into js
SmartClient is a framework based on js, you can use its components in an xml page and you manipulate them in Js, and it’s light
le showcase de smartclient
I recommend smartClient
I've been reading up about HAML/SASS lately and I'm not quite sure why any one would not want to use it. It seems to be very easy to switch, makes things cleaner and more efficient.
Update:
What about using one or the other? Most of the complaints (the few complaints there are) I hear seem to be about HAML, would there be any problems mixing and matching XHTML/HAML and CSS/SASS?
Update:
Sorry, one final update to the question. It seems to me that switching back from SASS to CSS is painless and simple. What about switching back from HAML to HTML?
If you're using Rails, yes. Go for it. Some issues you will hit, though, will be that any other developer brought onto the team later will have to learn it, as well. If you're already working with a big Rails crowd, that's fine, but HAML/SASS may confuse a designer who's worked with pure HTML/CSS for years.
If you're not using Rails, though, a good HAML/SASS integrated system is hard to come by. There are a few out there, but I imagine they're not as well-supported or as far along with the spec.
But, yeah. HAML/SASS is definitely worth it. The only real issue you'll hit is that it's not yet standard.
As for mix-n-match, HAML and SASS are so similar in style that I'd say go for both, but it, again, comes down to personal preference. Try using both for a day, and if you don't like one of them, switch back. There's no technological issue about it, so do what you prefer.
There are lots of tools for working with HTML and CSS. The syntax isn't pretty, but the improvements from HAML and SASS don't seem that dramatic to me, and for many they're not worth the trouble. Of course, for those developing web application with widely differing frameworks (differing from Rails that is) it's even harder to find a reason to go to the pain of integrating something so foreign. (Example: care to explain what I'd have to do to integrate SASS into my Java/Stripes/JSP environment? :-)
I've been on volunteer projects where HAML's syntax curve (syntactical whitespace, the automatic generation of tags etc) has been seen as a barrier: one more thing for a programmer new to the project to learn.
Personally, I think SASS is worth it, but I'm up in the air about HAML: having debugged HAML templates before it seems like the typing you don't have to do with HAML is overcome by the time you spend debugging why there's an error on your templates. This could be a (HAML) newbie's perspective though.
I'm inclined to agree with the question; it is easy to switch, the syntax isn't that complicated, and it does make things cleaner and more efficient. It also makes it harder to unwittingly generate invalid HTML.
I also think the learning curve is shallow enough that a programmer that can't handle it, is probably a programmer you are better off without on your team. That might sound harsh, but I believe it.
The only cons I can see would be if you are developing in ASP.NET or something where retrofitting Haml and Sass would be a pain, is way unexpected for anyone else used to the platform, and possible a chore to maintain in a production environment. On Rails though, go for it.
I don't think that using HAML ever adds much benefit to a project.
SASS, on the other hand, effectively introduces variables and computations and other really useful features that save you time and effort in the long run on larger projects.
Using SASS is incredibly smart with any project that's larger than just a simple one-page form.
I tried using SASS but found that editing CSS using MacRabitt's CSSEdit (Mac Only) was way easier and more efficient for the way I work. I'm a very visual person and like to have a live preview when making changes to style sheets and didn't feel like investing a ton of time into something I wasn't having a problem with.
One thing most people don't realize is that HAML sucks for content. It's great for structural markup, but don't try and push it too far. (You can mix & match HTML in your HAML file, too!)
Sass is absolutely indispensable, especially in the long run. It's not just about writing the stylesheets when you have it all in your head, but about maintaining them down the road. The new Sass3 takes the syntax question out of the equation: you can take your pick if you prefer the curly-bracey SCSS syntax.
HAML/SASS may indeed be awesome to use, but they do introduce dependencies both technical and knowledge-oriented. This may not be an issue if your dev and prod environments are controlled and predictable enough, with newbies receiving enough training (or being vetted for subject knowledge on the way into the organization) to hit the ground running, but all of that is overhead to be acknowledged.
why is this..
%p
hello world
better than this..?
<p>hello world</p>
clue.. If you aren't doing ruby, it isn't. Unfortunately adding closing tags and braces isn't really the most challenging aspect of making webpages, so most professionals wouldn't really care. Use whichever you prefer.
From a developer's perspective, Haml and Sass absolutely rock. However: from a designer's perspective, Haml and Sass might not be readable. It really depends on who is on your team.
If it's a bunch of developers and/or designers who aren't afraid to learn a DSL, then absolutely go for it.
If you have a mixed team where designers toss their CSS and HTML work to developers who translate that to Haml/Sass, sure.
If you have a design team that passes work to the developers AND the work flows back to the designers, you may not want to use this because the designers might not be able to use their tools to edit the files.
If you have a small team where marketing and business people need to edit the web pages and they only know HTML and a light bit of CSS, then you probably shouldn't use Haml/Sass.
However you can't really make a blanket statement here. Consider that at least with Rails you can mix the template types in your views. So, some of your templates can be plain HTML stuck in .erb files, and other pages are .haml files. You can have partials be of one type inserted into templates of another. (I think mixing types is probably a bad practice, but if you just need to "get the job done" then it's an option.)
I am using SASS on a Django project right now. I like it and am going to continue using it. One problem I've found however is that error messages aren't always particularly intuitive, particularly if you leave off a }.
If I write Java software for a BlackBerry, can it be decompiled using freely available tools similar to .NET Reflector, or is it a more elaborate process?
Software you write for any language, any platform, can be decompiled. It doesn't matter what code mangling (obfuscation) tools you use, it can be decompiled.
Any attempt to worry about this is going to be a waste of time. Just like DRM ;p
But the real point is, and I wish I had the link to the discussion I am thinking of because it was very good. But the point is this. Some one can decompile it, and if they just straight recompile it and try and resell it, what has been the point? It's still easy peasy to take them to court and win.
But you say "They can look at my code and figure out how I did it and redo it!". And to this I say: Don't flatter your self.
Think if you could get your hands on the source code to Windows. There would be a lot of "WTF are they doing here"? And "boy I would have done things differently". A few moments where you scratch your chin and go "Wow, nice". But over all, it's nothing you wouldn't have come to on your own. The real value is the time they spent to truly wrap their heads around the issue and come up with a solution.
Anyone who rips off your code won't be doing that. What is harder? writing new software or maintaining software? I think most developers would prefer the former.
So someone decompiles your software and either sells it in such an obvious way that you can easily prosecute, or they take the time to fully wrap their mind around the problems and design their own which in the end (years later?) will probably be completely different from yours.
It's just such a ridiculous scenario, I really wounder if anyone has ripped off a product by decompiling a competing product.
Don't worry about some one "stealing" your code. It CAN be done and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, but it won't be done, because it's ridiculous.
RIM's RAPC tool transforms standard J2ME .jar files into .cod files - this is a proprietary format, and no details of it have been published. What's known is that the .cod file sizes are smaller than .jar file sizes, and a lot of stuff gets stripped out (anything not reachable from a static context, basically).
Note that when .cod files get big enough (or more accurately when their code or data sizes get big enough) then RAPC splits the .cod into 2 or more separate cods (named CODNAME-2.cod, etc.), zips them and renames the .zip to .cod. You can unzip this, but you're still left with a bunch of .cod files that you can't decompile.
So generally, no you can't decompile BlackBerry application files. There's a tool called coddec which claims to be able to decompile .cod files, but I haven't had any luck with it.
Java code is easy to decompile. Search for obfuscators for Java Me, if you are interested in securing your code. Notably check this.
However, Adam's comment on why you shouldn't care should also be taken into account.
RIM's toolchain also runs your code through an optimizer (rapc) that makes it even hard to decompile than standard bytecode. Unless somebody spent a lot of time specifically in order to decompile it, it's pretty unlikely.
If you write a Midlet using pure J2ME and Sun's Compiler, the resulting bytecode can easily be decompiled. (Not that I have ever done this :P).
However if you use RIM's BlackBerry JDE and it's RAPC Compiler, your bytecode will be in a proprietary, undocumented format and it's really hard for somebody to decompile that or make any sense of your code.
Be aware though, its always possible to find out hard-coded Strings in an application, so you don't wanna hard code your TripeDES Key or something like that.
Pretty much all software can be decompiled. The question is only the amount of involvement and resources required to pull it off.
Yes, it can in theory, since it's essentially just Java bytecode. However, last time I did BB development (2 years ago) it was actually quite difficult to do in practice.
I like JAD for Java classes - http://www.kpdus.com/jad.html.
Echoing the above sentiment - don't worry about people stealing your code.
My two favorite things about decompiling:
You learn how the compiler treats your code. For example, you can verify that string concatenation is handled by the StringBuilder class. Or, you may uncover some thought-provoking "for" statements beyond the traditional "for (int i=0, i
You can really learn a product and extend it. I've used Microsoft OCS2007 Speech Server. I learned a lot about the product be decompiling some of their assemblies. I also extended some of the basic tools to fit my needs.
I am trying to build out a useful 3d game engine out of the Ogre3d rendering engine for mocking up some of the ideas i have come up with and have come to a bit of a crossroads. There are a number of scripting languages that are available and i was wondering if there were one or two that were vetted and had a proper following.
LUA and Squirrel seem to be the more vetted, but im open to any and all.
Optimally it would be best if there were a compiled form for the language for distribution and ease of loading.
One interesting option is stackless-python. This was used in the Eve-Online game.
The syntax is a matter of taste, Lua is like Javascript but with curly braces replaced with Pascal-like keywords. It has the nice syntactic feature that semicolons are never required but whitespace is still not significant, so you can even remove all line breaks and have it still work. As someone who started with C I'd say Python is the one with esoteric syntax compared to all the other languages.
LuaJIT is also around 10 times as fast as Python and the Lua interpreter is much much smaller (150kb or around 15k lines of C which you can actually read through and understand). You can let the user script your game without having to embed a massive language. On the other hand if you rip the parser part out of Lua it becomes even smaller.
The Python/C API manual is longer than the whole Lua manual (including the Lua/C API).
Another reason for Lua is the built-in support for coroutines (co-operative multitasking within the one OS thread). It allows one to have like 1000's of seemingly individual scripts running very fast alongside each other. Like one script per monster/weapon or so.
( Why do people write Lua in upper case so much on SO? It's "Lua" (see here). )
One more vote for Lua. Small, fast, easy to integrate, what's important for modern consoles - you can easily control its memory operations.
I'd go with Lua since writing bindings is extremely easy, the license is very friendly (MIT) and existing libraries also tend to be under said license. Scheme is also nice and easy to bind which is why it was chosen for the Gimp image editor for example. But Lua is simply great. World of Warcraft uses it, as a very high profile example. LuaJIT gives you native-compiled performance. It's less than an order of magnitude from pure C.
I wouldn't recommend LUA, it has a peculiar syntax so takes some time to get used to. Depending on who will be doing the scripting, this may not be a problem, but I would try to use something fairly accessible.
I would probably choose python. It normally compiles to bytecode, so you would need to embed the interpreter. However, if you must you can use PyPy to for example translate the code to C, and then compile it.
Embedding the interpreter is no issue. I am more interested in features and performance at this point in time. LUA and Squirrel are both interpreted, which is nice because one of the games i am building out is to include modifiable code, which has an editor in game.
I would love to hear about python, as i have seen its use within the battlefield series i believe.
python is also nice because it has actual OGRE bindings, just in case you need to modify something lower-level on the fly. I don't know of any equivalent bindings for Lua.
Since it's a C++ library, I would suggest either JavaScript or Squirrel, the latter being my personal favorite of the two for being even closer to C++, in particular to how it handles tables/structs and classes. It would be the easiest to get used to for a C++ coder because of all the similarities.
However, if you go with JavaScript and find an HTML5 version of Ogre3D, you should be able to port your game code directly into the web version with minimal (if any) changes necessary.
Both of these are a good choice, and both have their pros and cons, but both would definitely be the easiest to learn since you're likely already working in C++. If you're working with Java, the same may hold true, and if it's Game Maker, you wouldn't need either one unless you're trying to make an executable that people wouldn't need Game Maker itself to run, in which case, good luck finding an extension to run either of these.