http://www.osnews.com/story/10883/Desktop_Java_with_SWT_an_interview_with_Steve_Northover Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:02:54 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I wish "Java Faces" or whatever "the higher framework" above SWT is was a bit more "fleshed" out.. it's still no swing API. You have to give Sun credit for a very well designed GUI API. It really is top-notch even if it doesn't look great:)


But even with the Mustang b39 "the subpixel build" not as good as cleartype. but i'm a sticler for fonts"). the trick on linux is "medium-hint". rayiner knows about this stuff. freetype is no cleartype, but still looks better than swing post-b39.

I'll give them a big break for finally getting it into swing. How many years have we all been using LCDs now? really. Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The Mustang b39 with the Java Faces and the SWT mixed with beans is a way cool Desktop. Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "When we started SWT, I promised myself I was not going to build a gigantic, unmanageable, programming mess."

The road to bloatware is paved with...

Try having a beginner use SWT/JFaces/Eclipse/etc to actually write an application and you will be stunned as to how impossible it is.

While SWT certainly is miles beyond AWT, it is still mired in bad design that did not scale up beyond simple widgets at all well -- and also stymied by Java's horrible architecture and myopia when it comes to interfacing with native platforms.

After all these years, Sun Java still does not have transparent COM support, transparent Win32 support, transparent .NET support, etc. This lack of native platform support makes writing "nice" Java client applications ... something which will never happen.

No one can argue with the popularity of Eclipse. It is the only free IDE that has a lot of features. But it is steadily collapsing under its own weight. Which makes it suited only for corporate IT worker units who are trolling away on some giant outsourced project where personal productivity and elegance does not matter.

IBM is going to wake up in a few years and wonder what happened. Building a giant Titanic of a Java IDE is going to turn out badly. It may be big iron, but it is not strong iron. Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think it's a hit, and you're misinformed...

Try having a beginner use SWT/JFaces/Eclipse/etc to actually write an application and you will be stunned as to how impossible it is.

That's like asking a beginner to write a fully enabled EJB based application with web apps, xml services, and rcp clients. ... or the equivalent in .NET. Have a beginner start with basic SWT, and they'll soon find out it's not hard at all. Then add JFace. Then add the Eclipse plugin architecture.

The neat thing about SWT is that it's really very small, easy and straightforward by itself. And, if you are complaining that it doesn't give you any funtionality by itself, I've written several *large* applications in straight SWT and they're fully functional. Plus, if you're going to write SWT apps (or any GUI apps for that matter) get a good GUI builder. Eclipse VEP, Jigloo, or SWT-Designer.

While SWT certainly is miles beyond AWT, it is still mired in bad design that did not scale up beyond simple widgets at all well -- and also stymied by Java's horrible architecture and myopia when it comes to interfacing with native platforms.

The SWT forms that I've created scale quite well - plus how much scaling are you talking about? You'll reach the 'usable' desktop limits before you hit any type of technical scalability limits. Also, the whole point of Java is to be cross-platform - hence the reason it *doesn't* interface with native platforms directly.

After all these years, Sun Java still does not have transparent COM support, transparent Win32 support, transparent .NET support, etc. This lack of native platform support makes writing "nice" Java client applications ... something which will never happen.

Again, please explain. All this support you talk about is available using freely available bindings, libraries and such. Maybe it doesn't come in Java itself - but why would it? These aren't cross-platform APIs/protocols/etc.

Which makes it suited only for corporate IT worker units who are trolling away on some giant outsourced project where personal productivity and elegance does not matter.

The reason our business is using SWT is precisely because productivity matters. Using a great IDE like Eclipse, and coupling it with a great GUI builder you would be amazed at how much you can get done. ...and as far as elegance goes, you're talking to the wrong people (Java devs) ... if you want to see inelegant code go talk to the VB6 guys.

IBM is going to wake up in a few years and wonder what happened. Building a giant Titanic of a Java IDE is going to turn out badly.

IBM did wake up - they realized they needed something to compete directly with .NET and Visual Studio - and Swing didn't cut it. But, SWT does and the stuff that the Eclipse team is doing with their RCP tools is really unbelievable.

It may be big iron, but it is not strong iron.

Um ... this is software we're talking about - no iron involved. Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? SWT on its own is mostly okay. The widgets are not the best, but they do work. And they are better than anything that can be done via "pure" Java.

I think it is hypocritical to say SWT is good (and it is largely native code) but other native code would be bad. If Java had native COM, native Win32, native .NET on Windows, writing stuff far better than SWT would be simple and enjoyable. Maybe I want to use Java/Eclipse/SWT and I don't care about running on Linux? Why should I be locked out of making a good app?

Scaling up -- in terms of application size and complexity -- from SWT, the application model breaks down rapidly. The payoff vs. complexity curve is not pretty. Essentially all the madness of EJB has been ported to the desktop.

I believe this is mostly due to IBM's influence although Eclipse came from a UK shop and the Brits always produce massive frameworks that are overengineered on the outside and underengineered on the inside.

IBM due to their size and is getting traction with Eclipse. However, the current Sun version of Java is for servers. It is not a good foundation for any kind of client application. I think this point is lost on IBM and many of the Java jockers who are still drinking the dotcom Java koolaid.

Thus looking at Eclipse and client applications, it is a big ship headed out to sea, headed for oblivion. These big ships are good for IBM server space and the big iron world, but not appropriate for modern client apps.

When the day comes that I find an Eclipse RCP application that is useful, simple to installl, and easy to use, then maybe I will take another look. For today, there are better options for most developers who are not contractually or economically tied to IBM/Java. Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? At least I can burn a binary on windows and linux an not fuss with a damn runtime besides what GCJ gives me

Plus, the fonts still look like crap in Java 5 Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just pick and choose what you want Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? enough said Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Hello, anybody listening! Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Haha! Well said, bruda! I feel exactly the same way about Java/.NET. I call them corporate Koolaid. Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I was trying to compile the swt.jar (from eclipse 3.1) with gcj 4.0.1pre, no way for me, any suggestions?

All non-gui apps seem to compile fine though... Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've personally received support from Steve at eclipse.platform.swt and I'd like to say thanks again. He puts his blood, sweat and tears into swt! swt is great, and it's my gui toolkit of choice and I've used many over the past decade. I get great windows xp desktop performance with my application and all the benefits of development in java. Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't get why someone always has to complain about fonts in Swing apps. They look just like fonts everywhere else. I'm using jEdit on Debian Sarge with ... ok, I hate to admit it, but I'm using Sun's 1.4.2 (dunno if jEdit works with GCJ4 -- I need to try it though). The text area of the editor has antialiased font rendering (though you can turn that on or off), and the menus just use some small X11 bitmapped font. It's lovely.

The *first* thing I did long ago when configuring my desktop was shut off subpixel font rendering. It leaves very distracting color artifacts. Pure black-n-white pixels look much better to my eye -- especially on my beautiful LCD monitor.

Anyhow, jEdit is written in Swing and the fonts look perfect. Exactly like fonts in, say, Firefox. Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? especially for IDE's, anti aliased fonts suck big time. and i agree,i dont have a big issue about java and fonts. Anyway, for people to bash Java, after this issue is fixed (which is fixed in Mustang already), they will have another slogan..
But one thing you said made me confused, why do you feel bad using Sun's java? it is not piracy. it is posibly the best java implementation out there. (JRockit is also good tough.). it free, and always be free.
it is not mandatory to accept GPL as a computing religion when you use Debian i assume . Fri, 17 Jun 2005 05:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I don't get why someone always has to complain about fonts in Swing apps. They look just like fonts everywhere else. I'm using jEdit on Debian Sarge with ... ok, I hate to admit it, but I'm using Sun's 1.4.2... Anyhow, jEdit is written in Swing and the fonts look perfect. Exactly like fonts in, say, Firefox.
OK "

John fire up Jedit and reset the look and feel to GTK+ then look at the system fonts on the menus then compare to Firefox. The Java fonts suck compared to the Native fonts on Firefox. Now fire up an SWT application like Eclipse, Azureus or RSSOwl and look at the system fonts there and the look the same as on Firefox.

SWT gives genuine native GTK2 GUI for Linux apps where Swing sucks and the widgets don't work quite right either. Set your screen resolution to 600x800 and fire up Limewire with the Limewire look and feel - now set the look and feel to GTK+ and the widgets are all out of place and virtually unusable.

However Swing apps using the Windows look and feel on Windows XP do appear pretty much native and the fonts are fine. If you want your app to look native on Linux then SWT is the way to go. Fri, 17 Jun 2005 06:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One thing I don't like is that the SWT license (EPL) isn't compatible with the GPL. That means you are not allowed to use GPL code with SWT. Afaik the patent clause in the EPL is the reason for the incompatibility... Hopefully with GPL v3 the EPL will be considered compatible...

fs Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I always hated java's layout managers. An overdesigned solution to a small problem. I mean, how often do you resize windows? I almost never do. I could never get my dialogs to look how I wanted them to look.
A shame SWT is not better than AWT/Swing in that regard.

I love how .net solves that problem with no effort using anchors.
Yeah im not even close to being objective. I love .net and hate java. When I write a program in C# it very often works the first time I compile it, where as in java I always have to spend hours looking at some trivial peace of code because there is always something in the java class library thats implemented in some incredibly wierd way. Like counting months from 0, or not displaying the header in JTable because I used the gridbagconstraints layout manager.
And I like working in an IDE that doesnt eat up my entire RAM and doesnt eat up 100% of my CPU for no apparent reason way to often. Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I always hated java's layout managers. An overdesigned solution to a small problem. I mean, how often do you resize windows? I almost never do. I could never get my dialogs to look how I wanted them to look.
A shame SWT is not better than AWT/Swing in that regard.

I love how .net solves that problem with no effort using anchors.

SWT comes with a FormLayout that basically does this. You anchor the widgets just like in .NET, VB ... couple this with a good GUI builder and your set. As for the other layout managers, they're great for portability to odd platforms (PDAs and such) but I agree that they are overkill and a huge nightmare to use.

Yeah im not even close to being objective. I love .net and hate java. When I write a program in C# it very often works the first time I compile it, where as in java I always have to spend hours looking at some trivial peace of code because there is always something in the java class library thats implemented in some incredibly wierd way.

Um ... maybe you should write your apps by reading the specs first instead of *guessing* as to what they are - also, Java is relatively consistent, although I agree that the Calendar classes are a huge overbuilt disaster - not fun to work with (but, of course, incredibly powerful, flexible and localizable.)

And I like working in an IDE that doesnt eat up my entire RAM and doesnt eat up 100% of my CPU for no apparent reason way to often.

You're right - Eclipse has been known to do it's fair share of random freezes for several seconds. Hopefully this will be fixed in the 3.1 release. Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>>Um ... maybe you should write your apps by reading the specs first instead of *guessing* as to what they are

javadoc is huge for every class and many of these wierd little pecularities are mentioned in some small part of the text, if mentioned at all.
If I need to know how to use a class in .net, I can find help very fast and its well structured. Most of the time I dont even have to look up a new class, because everything behaves exactly how you would imagine it would behave. That is a sign of a GOOD design.
Thanks for the FormLayout info. I admit I dont have any experience with SWT. I read a tutorial after reading the interview, then I tried to create a visual SWT class with Eclipse (+ visual editor plugin) and it threw out some wierd error. Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? aaa wrote:
> But one thing you said made me confused, why do you feel bad using Sun's
> java? it is not piracy.

I just prefer using GNU or GPL'd software whenever I reasonably can. It may be possible to build/run jEdit with GCJ4, but I haven't put in the time to find out yet (work has been crazy-busy lately, and promises to be that way for the next few weeks at least). I was just trying to be a little funny saying "I hate to admit it...".

chemicalscum wrote:
> John fire up Jedit and reset the look and feel to GTK+ then look at the system
> fonts on the menus then compare to Firefox.

It hadn't occurred to me that the font rendering would change when you change the LaF. I'd always just used Metal at home because I prefer it to GTK (yes, I *like* the way Metal looks . I'll have to try your experiment when I get home tonight.

I'm at work right now, and only have OS X in front of me ATM. When I switch to the metal LaF, jEdit only works for a little while and then eventually crashes or locks up or just starts acting weird. Anyhow, it's using Apple's Java, and Apple is probably only concerned with their LaF looking (and working) good on their platform.

Yes though: I've tried Eclipse at home on Debian, and the fonts look great -- just like Firefox, and just like the text editing area with Metal jEdit. Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > As for the other layout managers, ... but I agree that they
> are overkill and a huge nightmare to use.

Well, I always use "Layout Managers" even in the most simple Dialog. If you care to create your Dialogs with some sane GUI-Designer it's not a problem at all.

I tend to prefer Glade and wxDesigner. (Those are not Java tools, but the concept is propably the same.) Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have not written a UI in years which was not resizable.
The standard JDK layout managers however either are too simplistic or syntactical nightmare overkill (Gridbag )
There however is one which solved most if not all of the standard needs you ever have, that one is the Formlayout by Kasten Lentzsch, possibly, the most powerful and almost easiest to use layout manager in existence. Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Test Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments