-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dalibor Topic wrote:
> In my opinion, a pure java, liberally licensed, free software, swing > implementation would be preferable to native-toolkit based swing > implementations. The hypothetical [1] native speed advantage is not as > important as cross-platform/cross-vm deplayability of Swing apps to me. Why does this preclude a native toolkit based Swing implementation, so long as it implements the spec properly? It would seem to me as that would simply make it faster when in use -- a scenario of having your cake and eating it too. > [1] I'm not aware of anyone, commercial or free, who has managed to write a > Swing wrapper around a native graphical toolkit. So any claims of a speed > advantage by implementing Swing in native code are purely hypothetical. ISTR stumbling across a Swing implementation coded up in C++ on the GCJ mailing list archives. That doesn't make it a wrapper around another toolkit, but it does give you a speed improvement, as it should (theoretically) be almost as fast as GTK or Qt or the like. Alex. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+sBQGtHQW4HWNftkRAvhCAJ0d1xuF4WuqDXCqTfbtzJYZKihYTwCgk8gV rPadgQt0yRE0NEp7VpyS7OI= =8YS+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
