company-logo

Cognitive Load, Portability and the Superiority of Client-Side Frameworks

The recent introduction of TrimPath Junction got me to thinking about Dietrich’s widely read post on Cognitive Load and the Superiority of Server-Side Ajax GUI Frameworks. GWT‘s big advantage is that it mobilizes armies of Java programmers to write browser-based applications without having to learn JavaScript. This is clearly of enormous benefit to organizations with lots of Java programmers, few client-side resources, and a burning desire to build powerful webapps. Yet for the similarly huge army of client-side programmers out there, GWT is pretty useless. Why learn a foreign language just to have it translated back into your native tongue?

I haven’t yet had a chance to play with TrimPath Junction, but it sounds pretty cool. Using the open-source Helma framework, it offers Rails-style MVC scaffolding in a JavaScript syntax that executes the same code on the client and server. Basically, it’s RoR meets Adobe AIR for JavaScript programmers. I hope to give it a test drive soon.

Server-side JavaScript has been around for ages, but it’s never really become a common development model. I remember writing ASP Classic apps in server-side JScript back at the turn of the millennium and having people wig out on me. "Why not write in VBScript like everyone else," they’d ask. My answer: "Because I can save time by running the same validation libraries on the client and the server … and because I can write the entire app in one language." I obviously have no argument with Dietrich’s thesis on cognitive load. It’s just that my brain features a JavaScript compiler, not a Java one.

GWT is a great piece of engineering that keeps getting better; just check out the new non-beta 1.4 release. But I think there are a lot of advantages to frameworks that mobilize the JavaScript masses to write front-to-back webapps. The same cognitive efficiencies can be achieved, plus client-side programmers already know all the pieces of the UI puzzle. Ask a room of Java developers how to build accessibility and usability into standards-compliant XHTML and CSS. Nine out of 10 wouldn’t have a clue.

The other big advantage to developing UI code in its native language is that you can port it to any server platform. With GWT and similar frameworks, you’ve got to rebuild much of your UI from scratch if you want to change course in mid-stream. With purely client-side frameworks such as Prototype, jQuery, YUI or MooTools, switching libraries may entail rewiring some of your code to a new API. But switching server platforms, from J2EE to .Net to PHP to RoR, can be done without much work at the UI layer. "The right tool for the right job" is a truism for a reason. Pure client-side development of UI code allows for the development of reusable components whose only dependency is on the standards bodies and browser vendors who control JS, CSS and HTML. GWT and its peers are useful for some teams and some projects, but they’re not the only answer to webapp development.

  1. James MacFarlane Reply

    “Ask a room of Java developers how to build accessibility and usability into standards-compliant XHTML and CSS. Nine out of 10 wouldn’t have a clue.”

    That one is going up on my cube, right next to a diatribe about why “skip into” is the most used button on the web.

    Seriously, while Java has its uses, shoe-horning it into being a server-side web development platform has always baffled me. Well, at least it’s not .NET.

Leave a Reply

*

captcha *