Re: Microsoft's goals for 2006

Paul Allen wrote:

> It wasn't about money, but rather about preventing Microsoft from
> flooding the market with their proprietary version of Java. Sun
> won, big time, although it's not clear what that win means for
> their long-term survival. Java's on what, it's third GUI toolkit?
> I was just thinking about learning Swing, and now it's out and
> something else is in. That's a platform without a long-term
> strategy. :-(

The Eclipse SWT is very serviceable and finding many converts.

It's all I would ever need -- and with the 1.0 release of the Eclipse
SWT its a no-brainer.

John A. Bailo wrote:
> Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> It wasn't about money, but rather about preventing Microsoft from
>> flooding the market with their proprietary version of Java. Sun
>> won, big time, although it's not clear what that win means for
>> their long-term survival. Java's on what, it's third GUI toolkit?
>> I was just thinking about learning Swing, and now it's out and
>> something else is in. That's a platform without a long-term
>> strategy. :-(
>
>
> The Eclipse SWT is very serviceable and finding many converts.
>
> It's all I would ever need -- and with the 1.0 release of the Eclipse
> SWT its a no-brainer.
>

Opps...make that the 1.0 release of WST.

"John A. Bailo" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:43B5812D.20707@texeme.com...
> John A. Bailo wrote:
>> Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>>> It wasn't about money, but rather about preventing Microsoft from
>>> flooding the market with their proprietary version of Java. Sun
>>> won, big time, although it's not clear what that win means for
>>> their long-term survival. Java's on what, it's third GUI toolkit?
>>> I was just thinking about learning Swing, and now it's out and
>>> something else is in. That's a platform without a long-term
>>> strategy. :-(
>>
>>
>> The Eclipse SWT is very serviceable and finding many converts.
>>
>> It's all I would ever need -- and with the 1.0 release of the Eclipse SWT
>> its a no-brainer.
>>
>
> Opps...make that the 1.0 release of WST.
>
I _think_ you mean: "Oops.... make that the 1.0 release of SWT". Or is WST
something else again?

Rhino

Rhino wrote:

> I _think_ you mean: "Oops.... make that the 1.0 release of SWT". Or is WST
> something else again?

SWT is the Eclipse GUI toolkit.

WST is the web standard tools -- lets you do web pages, .jsp pages, java
faces and so on, in Eclipse.

It's always been there, but they just released the 1.0 version.

I was saying that by using the Eclipse platform you can get some
consistency with java that matches the .NET/Visual Studio system.

"John A. Bailo" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:43B587EF.4070407@texeme.com...
> Rhino wrote:
>
>> I _think_ you mean: "Oops.... make that the 1.0 release of SWT". Or is
>> WST something else again?
>
> SWT is the Eclipse GUI toolkit.
>
> WST is the web standard tools -- lets you do web pages, .jsp pages, java
> faces and so on, in Eclipse.
>
My mistake; I thought 'WST' was an inadvertent transposition of 'SWT'. :-)

> It's always been there, but they just released the 1.0 version.
>
> I was saying that by using the Eclipse platform you can get some
> consistency with java that matches the .NET/Visual Studio system.
>
Forgive my ignorance but how does SWT differ from Swing/JFC? Does SWT offer
desireable components not found in Swing/JFC? Doesn't Swing/JFC work in
..NET/Visual Studio?

Rhino

Rhino wrote:
> "John A. Bailo" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
> news:43B587EF.4070407@texeme.com...
>> Rhino wrote:
>>
>>> I _think_ you mean: "Oops.... make that the 1.0 release of SWT". Or is
>>> WST something else again?
>> SWT is the Eclipse GUI toolkit.
>>
>> WST is the web standard tools -- lets you do web pages, .jsp pages, java
>> faces and so on, in Eclipse.
>>
> My mistake; I thought 'WST' was an inadvertent transposition of 'SWT'. :-)
>
>> It's always been there, but they just released the 1.0 version.
>>
>> I was saying that by using the Eclipse platform you can get some
>> consistency with java that matches the .NET/Visual Studio system.
>>
> Forgive my ignorance but how does SWT differ from Swing/JFC? Does SWT offer
> desireable components not found in Swing/JFC? Doesn't Swing/JFC work in
> .NET/Visual Studio?
>
> Rhino
>
>
SWT stands for 'The Standard Widget Toolkit'. It is analogous to
AWT/Swing in Java with a difference - SWT uses a rich set of native widgets.





--


Thanks in Advance...
IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
__________________________________________________ ________________________

'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
-William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)

IchBin wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>> "John A. Bailo" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
>> news:43B587EF.4070407@texeme.com...
>>> Rhino wrote:
>>>
>>>> I _think_ you mean: "Oops.... make that the 1.0 release of SWT". Or
>>>> is WST something else again?
>>> SWT is the Eclipse GUI toolkit.
>>>
>>> WST is the web standard tools -- lets you do web pages, .jsp pages,
>>> java faces and so on, in Eclipse.
>>>
>> My mistake; I thought 'WST' was an inadvertent transposition of 'SWT'.
>> :-)
>>
>>> It's always been there, but they just released the 1.0 version.
>>>
>>> I was saying that by using the Eclipse platform you can get some
>>> consistency with java that matches the .NET/Visual Studio system.
>>>
>> Forgive my ignorance but how does SWT differ from Swing/JFC? Does SWT
>> offer desireable components not found in Swing/JFC? Doesn't Swing/JFC
>> work in .NET/Visual Studio?
>>
>> Rhino
>>
>>
> SWT stands for 'The Standard Widget Toolkit'. It is analogous to
> AWT/Swing in Java with a difference - SWT uses a rich set of native
> widgets.
>
Sorry forgot to include a link..

http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Arti...-Design-1.html

--


Thanks in Advance...
IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
__________________________________________________ ________________________

'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
-William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)

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.

> Doesn't Swing/JFC work in .NET/Visual Studio?

Who cares? Does anyone actually use Visual Studio to write "Java"?

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

"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

Rhino <no.offline.contact.please@nospam.com> wrote:
> 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.

I see no reason why it would. In fact, if Microsoft hasn't fixed their
JNI issues, it would make the task considerably harder, I should think.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation