Gili: So now that they are no longer in charge (it's open source now) let's fix AWT/Swing/FX and start marketing. We're in charge now. Or did I take a nap and miss something? Ultimately, perhaps not in the short term, you get market share by providing a demonstrably better alternative.
We agree on one thing and that is how horrible are browsers for getting real work done and the level of coding skills -- anybody can make a web site these days -- and they look like it. It's like VBA making everybody who writes a macro in excel think they are a programmer. I've heard that in offices: "I'm programming an excel sheet." The only reason I've heard for using HTML is it looks better. Well, if you don't like the looks of Swing change the L&F! If there's no L&F you like, create one. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water as they say. Maybe NB needs to start a L&F contest? One of the problems with this whole discussion is that there is such a wide variety of interests. I happen to be from a business background and specifically financial interests. I got into programming because the software I had to use (MOST accounting software) was so poor. I learned what I needed to get the job done (I wasn't being paid to be a programmer) and, unfortunately, because of that I never got the academic background the smart people here have about render pipelines, etc. But I know VERY well what business users need; browsers can't cut it but Swing provides everything the financial side of businesses need and want. Now if your use case is disseminating information to either internal or external users and providing file downloads there is no better tool than a browser. For doing company handbooks, training films, etc. NOBODY wants to use Swing in that case. Things that move and bob are not welcome in a business use case but they're all the rage (and appropriate) for information dissemination. For business use cases "pretty" and "cute" are unwelcome -- we want functionality. For a browser "pretty" and "cute" are what it's all about -- HTML is the right tool. The corollary to that is the audience. There is a vast difference between 250 people placing an order at a web site in a day (a browser is quite appropriate here) and the AP clerk who has to record 250 AP invoices every day (or even one day!). With a heads down, efficient data entry Swing dialog that clerk can process 250 invoices in a relatively short time (and time IS money). Giving that poor clerk a browser interface to struggle with is a mean thing to do to an employee. Swing provides a great focus traversal policy -- FX is even easier and better. Use the right tool for the use case. I do desktop apps -- give me Swing/FX. Christian does web apps -- give him a browser. NB can handle them both and handle them nicely....er, well, at least as nicely as HTML/browsers can be made to work. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:58 PM, cowwoc <[email protected]> wrote: > Chuck, I appreciate free software as much as the next guy. But I still > blame Sun and Oracle for killing AWT/Swing. > > If they wanted more community contributions they could have opened up the > bug reporting system, faciliated pull requests, and shown that they are > acting in good faith. They chose to pursue a one-way conversation and it > cost them the market. > > So yes, I appreciate what we got but ultimately Oracle bares the > responsibility for AWT/Swing/JavaFX dying. Oracle is not a B2C company and > these technologies requires a company that excels at marketing to end-users. > > Gili > >
