There is perhaps no problem with Swing itself. But java is perhaps not suitable for fat client - type apps while it is a great language for the server side. As I always say that the market decides what stays and what not. Let's take a look at the job market say dice. How many are there for Swing develpoers and how many are for J2EE? Let's take a look at the desktop apps. How many huge apps are written in Java Swing and how many are in C++,C or even VB? If Swing were so great why do so many companies even prefer a lesser language such as VB to Swing for fat clients? Java's uccess attributes solely to its capability on the server side. Without J2EE, java would have died a long time ago.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OK, my post did look kind of ugly. It really wasn't directed at any person, > just at the words. > > I've been programming with Swing since 1.1.8 and finally I am able to do it > for a living. I've > heard all the Swing stinks arguments just like I've heard all the EJB stinks > arguments. But I've > built applications using each that don't stink. It took me a long time to get > good at > AWT/Swing/Graphics in Java. Years. The applications that people commonly use > for a point of > reference, such as Limewire, just don't illustrate what these APIs can do. > You haven't seen > what's behind corporate firewalls. JFC exposes much, graphically, that the > underlying windowing > toolkit has to offer. There is nothing stopping you from taking a blank > panel, a Graphics2D and > implementing your own layout managers and all your own controls. And they > won't be slow unless > you write code that doesn't take a Thread from point A to point B on the > shortest route > possible. In fact, they have a good chance of being awesome. But, you can get > tangled up in > large method stacks if you don't scour the source and examine a lot of stack > traces, if you just > blindly use the APIs and "recommended" coding styles. > > I've criticized Swing too. The main problem with it is that the authors used > private and > package-private fields and methods everywhere, making subclassing difficult > and in some places > nearly impossible. Library designers should use protected unless told > otherwise. There are other > criticisms but that's my main one. > > But, it made me mad when I started reading all these articles about SWT and > Eclipse and how > Swing "sucked". I didn't want Sun/JCP to ever buy that. People parrot that > stuff. I want Sun/JCP > to keep on working on it and keep on making it better. It has come a long way > and you can do > ANYTHING with it if you invest the time instead of looking for some framework > or plugin to do > everything for you. > > Anyway, I know, I'm on the wrong list. All I should have said is: Good Swing > code is anything > but "crap code". > > Erik > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Aug 10, 2005 3:38 PM > To: Struts Users Mailing List <user@struts.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Nice try (was Java code generator including Struts 1.2) > > Hey, back the testosterone truck up Erik... > > You want to disagree with the opinion? Fine, no problem. I don't think > Swing is especially good. Show me where I'm wrong, I'll listen. > > No need to attack someone over something as trivial as saying some > technology sucks... unless you created that technology, and even then it > wouldn't be terribly appropriate. > > Frank > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What a load of crap. > > > > Swing doesn't suck, you just suck at it. > > > > Erik > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Aug 10, 2005 1:59 PM > > To: Struts Users Mailing List <user@struts.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Nice try (was Java code generator including Struts 1.2) > > > > On 8/10/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>I remember having to deal with some Swing code that was created by a > >>junior programmer using some IDE (I forget which frankly, it's not on the > >>market any more - I want to say it was IBM's old one before WSAD, but I > >>might be wrong). The code was such an immense tangle of crap it still > >>makes me shudder to think of it all these years later. > > > > > > The original problem is that Swing does not have resource files. > > Apparently, Swing designers thought that Swing apps would have been > > fluid and resizable, and it would have been hard to stick all fluidity > > into a simple resource file. And now you have it. Swing code is crap > > even when it is well-formatted, with these unwieldy listeners and a > > forest of interfaces. There are nicer ways to create event listener > > than to implement an interface with bunch of methods in it. > > > > And now we are switching to "why programming to interfaces" thread. > > Swing is a clear example why programming to interfaces is sometimes > > such a pain in the butt. > > > > Michael. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Frank W. Zammetti > Founder and Chief Software Architect > Omnytex Technologies > http://www.omnytex.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
