I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Though, I'd say this is a non-existent market. For an app that needs to go that far, you need ALL of the following to hold:
(A) It's an app that is not already part of the OS distribution itself. (B) It can't work as a web app. Note that slightly crappier web app easily win out over their non-web-app variants, so it really cannot at all work as a webapp. (C) It's an app which doesn't need to do much, if any, OS integration, as java doesn't really become a feasible technology if you need to go delve around kernel extensions and such. (D) It's an app where the current native offerings on Windows, Mac, and arguably Linux are either missing or sufficiently crappy that you'll be able to take a relevant chunk of the market. (E) The app is the kind of app that benefits for looking native. How many apps qualify for that? I can't think of a single one. IDEs lose on clause (E). So does Vuze. On Nov 11, 8:22 pm, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 11, 4:10 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No argument from me here, and this is in fact exactly how JavaFX was > > set up originally (you do all the painting yourself), but there's a > > (in my opinion misguided) common request from swing users for their > > apps to look native. i.e. they WANT the app to look different on > > different platforms. > > Of course, that's common sense usability guidelines - don't confuse > the user just because you choose language X. Which is why I find the > stated goal of a common UI layer a pipe dream, it can't be done > without a good amount of compromising. The most successful multi- > platform applications share a common core but bind to different UI > layers. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
