"Chris Smith" <cdsmith@twu.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1f6a0be44de71f989c91@news.altopia.net.. .
> Rhino <no.offline.contact.please@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Forgive my ignorance but how does SWT differ from Swing/JFC? Does SWT
>> offer
>> desireable components not found in Swing/JFC?
>
> The SWT differs from Swing in that is relies mainly on native widgets
> (and therefore native code), but nevertheless keeps the JNI boundary low
> so that most implementation can be done in Java with only a thin native
> API wrapper. This is essentially a kind of compromise between the AWT
> with its thick peers and lack of decent selectoin, and Swing with its
> lightweight widgets.
>
> The SWT is less fun to work with than Swing, and doesn't contain more
> components than Swing. With JFace, at least a few of its components can
> match the sensible behavior of Swing's model-based architecture. In
> general, it's easier to screw up and you have to know more to do it
> well. However, SWT is necessary for writing Eclipse plugins and RCP-
> based applications, and that alone makes it worth learning. It's also
> supposed to fix some performance issues of Swing.
>
Okay, thanks for that information.

>> Doesn't Swing/JFC work in .NET/Visual Studio?
>
> Who cares? Does anyone actually use Visual Studio to write "Java"?
>
I would hope not. I just asked because John said "that by using the Eclipse
platform you can get some consistency with java that matches the .NET/Visual
Studio system." I was wondering whether using SWT would make it easier to
write an application that would work in .NET/Visual Studio. I have no desire
to work with .NET and Microsoft's pseudo-Java but you never know when you'll
have to port something over to Microsoft so I thought I'd asked if using SWT
would make that task easier.

Rhino