On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Christopher Oliver wrote, On 28/06/2003 19.19:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
I'm really confused about this SWT thing. On my computer Eclipse feels
slower than JBuilder. And I still have to understand what makes SWT so
compelling and
snip
I have used Swing quite a lot, and as you know I even gave a shot at
making a WYSIWYG editor for XML. I had to debug the Editor.
Which xml namespaces were you trying to do this for? xhtml, svg, mathml?
I've tried numerous times to extend the javax.swing.text.*.* packages and
had
Roger I Martin PhD wrote, On 30/06/2003 14.57:
snip
I have used Swing quite a lot, and as you know I even gave a shot at
making a WYSIWYG editor for XML. I had to debug the Editor.
Which xml namespaces were you trying to do this for? xhtml, svg, mathml?
DocumentDTD, basically like xhtml
I've
on 6/28/03 4:43 PM Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The fact is that SWT is crap. Total crap.
Pff, SWT is a thin layer on top of the operating system, everything else
is native, therefore optimized and normally hardware accelerated
(today's GPUs are gigaflop machines with gigabyte/sec video mem2mem
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 29/06/2003 19.09:
on 6/28/03 4:43 PM Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The fact is that SWT is crap. Total crap.
This is a bit too much taken out of context I reckon ;-)
It was made to try and show that saying that something is crap or not,
things don't go far.
Pff, SWT is
Christopher Oliver wrote, On 28/06/2003 19.19:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
I'm really confused about this SWT thing. On my computer Eclipse feels
slower than JBuilder. And I still have to understand what makes SWT so
compelling and AWT so dreaded.
Check out JGoodies' fake eclipse LF using
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
on 6/26/03 12:01 PM Christopher Oliver wrote:
Another aspect not always noticed is the speed of the compiler. Because
Java compilers don't perform any compile-time optimizations, they are
significantly faster than C++ compilers. This is very important when
dealing
