RE: [jug-discussion] SWT ... the scoop?
-Original Message- From: Matt Sponer [mailto:matt.sponer;healthtrio.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [jug-discussion] SWT ... the scoop? Whoa, awesome. Thanks for posting that. I've been curious for a long time why Swing is so unusable, and why IBM doesn't show off SWT more. It's great to hear more of the story. Sun's Java Platform Performance book talks a little about Swing's performance issues. The author was on the team that tried to improve the performance, and he seems to think the root cause of the slowness is an overly abstracted (amateurish) class hierachy. Among other things, this results in masses of temporary objects that are churned by the Swing API, something like a dozen temporary objects are created for each cell of a JTable on every repaint. Don't you guys think that if it weren't for the Swing mess, Java would be the new Visual Basic, and C#/.NET would be pure hype that does nothing new? In retrospect, I think the Microsoft Java Extensions were a good idea: you could write pretty UI's in Java. Instead of admitting that there was a real need for this, Sun went to court and never offered something competitive. Now two or three years later C# and .NET appear, looking surprisingly like Java with Microsoft Extensions, and this hole is filled. I'm glad, I hate MFC and VB, and like being able to write Windows applications in a pretty garbage collected language that has a new and thoughtful API. But I wish it could be Java instead, so I could work on an iMac and not feel like a sellout to the man. -Original Message- From: Simon Ritchie [mailto:simon.ritchie;amo.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [jug-discussion] SWT ... the scoop? In anticipation of the Tuesday presentation on SWT, here's a message to a mailing list posted by Alan Williamson, the editor of Java Developers Journal. The message he quotes is from a source within IBM. It's an interesting look at the inside politics of Swing and SWT. Simon. Subject: [ST-J] SWT ... the scoop? Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:31:25 - From: Alan Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Okay here you go ... read ... digest ... re-read ... and do more digesting ... ;-) Thanks for getting back to me. I'd love to give you the low down on Swing and SWT, as long as you keep me as your undisclosed source close to IBM. To see why everything is so messed up you need to go back a few years to the world when just AWT existed. Sun had built a basic set of portable control classes that mapped to native widgets on the different operating systems, and the next obvious step was to continue this model beyond its initial set of CUA 92 components ( text, button, etc... ) and add stuff like a table, a tree, a notebook, a slider, etc... While AWT was buggy beyond belief this was just poor code that needed fixing by Sun's coders. The developers at Sun like Graham and Otto used to publicly blame their bugs on operating system differences like focus order is different between windows and OS/2 or the behavior of Ctrl-X is different between ... and other lame excuses to take the heat off the fact that the real problem was that Sun released the code too early. Then Amy Fowler appeared at Sun. Without being sexist, Amy is a very pretty intelligent girl, and most geeky developers just go to putty in her hands. Amy came from a Smalltalk company called Objectshare where she looked after the UI class library there. The history of Smalltalk is a sad one if you apply it to Java, because once upon a time there were 3 big Smalltalk companies - IBM, Parc-Place and Digitalk. All 3 had equal market share in early 90s and life was good. Parc Place used emulated widgets ( i.e. a Swing design ) while IBM and Digitalk used native widgets. IBM overtook the others who then merged to form, imaginatively, Parc-Place Digitalk. A huge battle enused in which they tried to merge their products in a project called Jigsaw which failed due to politics ( the developers actually got it working ) because the native versus emulated crowd fought to the bitter death. Amy won a moral victory, however at IBM we just got all of their accounts because the two companies did nothing for an entire year except quarrel. When the dust settled the share price of PPD ( which was now called Objectshare for the same reason that Windscale was renamed to Sellafield - in the hope that everyone forgets the disaster that occured there ) went from 60 bucks to under 1 dollar a share. They were pulled form NASDAQ because of incorrect reportings of earnings and the lights went out. Sun were just up the road from PDD so the teccies all sent their CVs there. Amy was hired, and because she promised to solve all of the widget problems by doing a lightweight solution
RE: [jug-discussion] SWT ... the scoop?
Whoa, awesome. Thanks for posting that. I've been curious for a long time why Swing is so unusable, and why IBM doesn't show off SWT more. It's great to hear more of the story. Sun's Java Platform Performance book talks a little about Swing's performance issues. The author was on the team that tried to improve the performance, and he seems to think the root cause of the slowness is an overly abstracted (amateurish) class hierachy. Among other things, this results in masses of temporary objects that are churned by the Swing API, something like a dozen temporary objects are created for each cell of a JTable on every repaint. Don't you guys think that if it weren't for the Swing mess, Java would be the new Visual Basic, and C#/.NET would be pure hype that does nothing new? In retrospect, I think the Microsoft Java Extensions were a good idea: you could write pretty UI's in Java. Instead of admitting that there was a real need for this, Sun went to court and never offered something competitive. Now two or three years later C# and .NET appear, looking surprisingly like Java with Microsoft Extensions, and this hole is filled. I'm glad, I hate MFC and VB, and like being able to write Windows applications in a pretty garbage collected language that has a new and thoughtful API. But I wish it could be Java instead, so I could work on an iMac and not feel like a sellout to the man. -Original Message- From: Simon Ritchie [mailto:simon.ritchie;amo.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [jug-discussion] SWT ... the scoop? In anticipation of the Tuesday presentation on SWT, here's a message to a mailing list posted by Alan Williamson, the editor of Java Developers Journal. The message he quotes is from a source within IBM. It's an interesting look at the inside politics of Swing and SWT. Simon. Subject: [ST-J] SWT ... the scoop? Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:31:25 - From: Alan Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Okay here you go ... read ... digest ... re-read ... and do more digesting ... ;-) Thanks for getting back to me. I'd love to give you the low down on Swing and SWT, as long as you keep me as your undisclosed source close to IBM. To see why everything is so messed up you need to go back a few years to the world when just AWT existed. Sun had built a basic set of portable control classes that mapped to native widgets on the different operating systems, and the next obvious step was to continue this model beyond its initial set of CUA 92 components ( text, button, etc... ) and add stuff like a table, a tree, a notebook, a slider, etc... While AWT was buggy beyond belief this was just poor code that needed fixing by Sun's coders. The developers at Sun like Graham and Otto used to publicly blame their bugs on operating system differences like focus order is different between windows and OS/2 or the behavior of Ctrl-X is different between ... and other lame excuses to take the heat off the fact that the real problem was that Sun released the code too early. Then Amy Fowler appeared at Sun. Without being sexist, Amy is a very pretty intelligent girl, and most geeky developers just go to putty in her hands. Amy came from a Smalltalk company called Objectshare where she looked after the UI class library there. The history of Smalltalk is a sad one if you apply it to Java, because once upon a time there were 3 big Smalltalk companies - IBM, Parc-Place and Digitalk. All 3 had equal market share in early 90s and life was good. Parc Place used emulated widgets ( i.e. a Swing design ) while IBM and Digitalk used native widgets. IBM overtook the others who then merged to form, imaginatively, Parc-Place Digitalk. A huge battle enused in which they tried to merge their products in a project called Jigsaw which failed due to politics ( the developers actually got it working ) because the native versus emulated crowd fought to the bitter death. Amy won a moral victory, however at IBM we just got all of their accounts because the two companies did nothing for an entire year except quarrel. When the dust settled the share price of PPD ( which was now called Objectshare for the same reason that Windscale was renamed to Sellafield - in the hope that everyone forgets the disaster that occured there ) went from 60 bucks to under 1 dollar a share. They were pulled form NASDAQ because of incorrect reportings of earnings and the lights went out. Sun were just up the road from PDD so the teccies all sent their CVs there. Amy was hired, and because she promised to solve all of the widget problems by doing a lightweight solution, convinced Sun management to make her the head of the GUI development. She got in on the ticket of the folks already here messed up, let me handle it. Amy then hired all her old Parc-Place
