quote:

---

Original post by Oluseyi
(no offense, but I still find GUI-intensive Java apps slow... maybe Java interfacing with some lightweight native GUI scripting tool...)

---

Thats not all that far from what Eclipse actually is doing. It uses a custom GUI toolkit called Standard Widget Toolkit(SWT), which uses native widgets as much as possible. This is different to Swing, which only gets a window context from the underlying windowing system and from there on does all it's rendering itself. This is the main cause why Swing(which is what most people think of as "Java GUI") is so slow.
More information about the design of SWT here: http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-SWT-Design-1/SWT-Design-1.html

---

God puts an apple tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting "Gotcha." It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it... because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end. -- Douglas Adams

[edited by - Arild Fines on November 19, 2002 5:45:17 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Arild Fines
Thats not all that far from what Eclipse actually is doing. It uses a custom GUI toolkit called Standard Widget Toolkit(SWT), which uses native widgets as much as possible. This is different to Swing, which only gets a window context from the underlying windowing system and from there on does all it''s rendering itself. This is the main cause why Swing(which is what most people think of as "Java GUI") is so slow.
More information about the design of SWT here: http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-SWT-Design-1/SWT-Design-1.html

---

Cool! I''ll look into SWT at greater length later.

Incidentally, what''s the status on a Java JIT compiler? (And why-oh-why did Sun decide Swing had to look the same on all platforms, and thus alien on all?!)

quote:

---

Original post by Miserable
Are you saying that Mozilla is an IE clone? I was under the impression that it supported a number of features that IE does not offer, which is hardly the hallmark of a clone ... Yes, they share a great deal of features, but then, they are different tools for the same task.

---

Not to mention it's based on Netscape's source. Which would technically make IE a clone of Mozilla (not exactly, but you should understand what I'm saying). Worthless addition to this conversation, I know.

Back to the topic at hand. Check out Anjuta's CVS. The site hasn't had much big updates in a long time, but CVS activity is large. GDL/gIDE stuff is in full swing. In correlaboration with other libraries, it brings some great widgets desirable in IDEs. When the Gtk+ 2.0 port is finished, Anjuta should be great. Kdevelop seems to be maturing as well, though very slowly. Luckily Trolltech 's tools are so amazing.

Now.... if they could make GLADE's interface less annoying, or atleast find a way to have it work with Anjuta in a special mannor, they may have a clear direction of innovation and maturity.

[edited by - aggregate on November 20, 2002 12:50:58 AM]

Actually, Internet Explorer''s codebase was originally that of NCSA Mosaic, the "first" WWW browser. So one could argue that Netscape is a clone of IE.

---

Don''t listen to me. I''ve had too much coffee.

Maybe you forgot that NSCA Mosaic _is_ Netscape. Silly rabbit.

quote:

---

Original post by aggregate
Maybe you forgot that NSCA Mosaic _is_ Netscape. Silly rabbit.

---

You could argue that Netscape was only based on Mosaic, since development of Mosaic continued even after Netscape 1.0 was released (all the way up until about 1997, I believe). So it's not really true that Netscape == Mosaic.

Mind you, most of the original Netscape people were Mosaic people...

If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot!

---

codeka.com - Just click it.

[edited by - Dean Harding on November 21, 2002 2:16:06 AM]

I''m not really sure of the development of Mosaic after 1994. IIRC, they founded Mosaic Communications at that time -- hiring most of the developers on the project, and quickly after that changed to Netscape Communcations Corp. to better fit their hit ''Netscape.'' I''d imagine it continued on, so I''ll trust your word. And it would best to say Netscape "evolved" from Mosaic. MS, of course licensed the code through Spyglass and started giving it away. hehe

And here we are, IE 6 versus Mozilla 1.2b Anyway, can we get back to IDEs?

Which brings us back to the little know fact that Mozilla stands for Mosiac killer ;-)

quote:

---

Original post by aggregate
...Luckily Trolltech ''s tools are so amazing.

---

I actually consider moc and that UI builder thing to be unintuitive, inexpressive abominations.

quote:

---

Now.... if they could make GLADE''s interface less annoying, or atleast find a way to have it work with Anjuta in a special mannor, they may have a clear direction of innovation and maturity.

---

Hmm. Not much point interfacing with a tool built for a GUI with inherent usability problems, is there? (That was just an example of bad design; there are many more...)

The GUI paradigm as it currently stands is highly flawed, and no amount of massaging is going to change that. Furthermore, having developers design interfaces to software has harmed free software, because we only "scratch our own itches" and believe that there''s more than one way to do it.

We need a fresh approach. I think I''ll leave this discussion be from here on (because I''m a definite party-pooper), and focus on other discussions about revisiting GUIs as a whole, and integrating good UI and usability design from the get-go.

Have fun.

Oluseyi wins the Link Count award!

Current-day interfaces definitely aren''t optimal. However, changing the way computers work radically from one way to the other isn''t going to work. Most people are willing to try some minor changes when you talk them into it, but they simply refuse to try something that''s completely different.

Back to the IDE issue though. One thing I really missed from all those IDEs when I tried them was sane project support. In fact, that''s not something missing from the IDEs, it''s something missing from the *nixes in general.

Let''s face it, simple Makefiles are not powerful enoguh when you want to go full portability, and autotools-based configuration is a mess. And both approaches are absolutely not user-friendly. What I''d love to see is a system which is as simple to use as projects in MSVC++. Just copying .dsp files is NOT going to work, however, as those are nearly impossible to edit - such a system must be easy to use from the command line, too.
Basically, I''d like a system where I can just say: "Create executable Foo from source files a.cpp, b.cpp, c.cpp; link with library SDL". The system would then figure out (mainly by using file extension / file types) which compilers / linkers to use, and what options to use.

Of course you''d need some way to override the defaults just in case, but it would probably make life *a lot* easier for 90% of the users, while making it only slightly more complex for the rest.

cu,
Prefect