This is one issue that I agree with Charles on. I've had the unfortunate fate of having to program in Swing since it's inception and it still makes one eye twitch and I go fetal lying on the floor mumbling something about easier times.
Swing is one of the most overly-complicated GUI APIs with many use cases simply left out of the picture (e.g. try and get an event from a cell in a JTable - I'm not talking about a row event or a column event - a *cell* event). Comparing Swing to KDE, GTK+, AWT, SWT, VCL/CLX, Win32, and yes, even MFC. Mind you all GUI programming is hell. That's part of what inspired me to write Purnama XUI - I never have to write GUI/Swing code again. Anyways, customization or no customization, a XUL motor will be easier to use than a programming language for the following reasons: - memory management is dealt with for you - pointers/references/handles are dealt with for you - platform dependencies are dealt with for you - most programming constructs are hidden from you - the hundreds of API calls (or in Swing's case thousands of API calls) are hidden from you - language dependencies are hidden from you - inheritance hierarchies are hidden from you (usually) - layout issues/problems are dealt with for you (usually) Like Charles said, you specify widgets just like you would in HTML. It's much much more simple than writing GUI code which I think is the main push for XUL motors. And I do believe that on many platforms GUI development will be replaced with XUL motors so that you only have to write the Model code leaving the View and Controler (i.e. Delegate) behind. It's what's happening in Java, C#, Windows (FogHorn), Linux KDE (and I think GNOME too). I don't believe this to be simply a passing fad. My 0.02 ---------------------------------------------------------- > Charles Goodwin wrote: On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 08:04 +0200, Michael Gloegl wrote: >> Well, has anybody done that with XUL yet? I really don't know. I have >> not much XUL experience, which I freely admit. But I suspect (like it >> always is) that easier usage comes with reduced flexibility, not just >> because one is Java and the other XML. So I'd be really interested to >> see an Application using things like heavily customized JLists or >> JTrees, or one of the other Components that make Swing so complex. I >> doubt it would be much easier or understandable than the equivalent >> Swing code. > I challenge you to qualify the "reduced flexibilty". In Vexi, and I'm > sure many other XUL-like motors, widgets can be dynamically created and > manpilulated. And you can specify widgets just like you would HTML, > making it incredibly easy to get into. > Programming with Swing was like hell on earth for programmers. > Programming in Vexi (and I'm sure other XUL-like motors) is fun. -- - Charlie Charles Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Online @ www.charlietech.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
