Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Apr 2006 17:43 UTC, submitted by Sekou DIAKITE
KDE The KDE Look and Feel Project is a GPL-licenced Swing pluggable look and feel which uses Qt and KDE for the drawing of widgets. KDE Look and Feel implements most of the Java Look and Feel API including dialogs (ColorChooser, FileChooser, etc.).
Thread beginning with comment 113887
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Swing... blech...
by JacobMunoz on Tue 11th Apr 2006 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Swing... blech..."
JacobMunoz
Member since:
2006-03-17

Like I said "I've alread been poisoned by .Net" - so its mostly me.

But the objects I'm mostly referring to are JOptionPane, JPanel, and all of the J(something) objects. It would have been just slightly more intuitive to remove the 'J' prefix, I don't think Microsoft has copyrighted those quite yet.

And the Import JavaX (javax? is that java extension? or just another random suffix?)

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Swing... blech...
by smitty on Tue 11th Apr 2006 20:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Swing... blech..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I guess I'm one of the few people who likes both Windows.Forms and Swing. Complaining about having to put a J in front of the objects names and importing the javax instead of java is pretty silly, imo. I mean its not like it is confusing or anything. Stick to complaining about speed and aesthetics - you are on much safer ground there.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Swing... blech...
by JacobMunoz on Tue 11th Apr 2006 20:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Swing... blech..."
JacobMunoz Member since:
2006-03-17

"its not like it is confusing or anything"
- it really shouldn't be confusing. But since the object is cleary 'a text box' it's unnecessary (imo) to delcare that it is 'a text box in java' - there is no other 'textbox' object, so why the 'J'? And the consistency doesn't seem to be there with many Java objects (Spinner vs JSpinner? whuh?). Its the little things that make a language acceptable (especially for friends of mine learning their first language). It doesn't make the language unusable, or inferior (like lots of .net advocates claim), but it doesn't help the learning curve (or porting from other languages). Maybe this is Microsoft's fault for not using objects similar to those already written in Java, but I think Sun was trying to make Java 'unique' - with some unforseen consequences. It never 'took over the world' like Sun had promised and advertised.

And, yes, the speed is anemic - and aesthetically, there is much to be desired. The only true saving grace is portability, for now. I simply wish Java had been designed with just a little more ease-of-use in mind regarding the framework, there would be many more Java programmers if they had.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Swing... blech...
by unoengborg on Tue 11th Apr 2006 21:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Swing... blech..."
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06


But the objects I'm mostly referring to are JOptionPane, JPanel, and all of the J(something) objects.


The reason for the "J" is probably that Sun needed some way to descriminate between the old java.awt component set that used the native platform for rendering and the new javax.swing components. I.e. there was allready a java.awt.Panel when JPanel was named.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Swing... blech...
by darcysmith on Wed 12th Apr 2006 00:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Swing... blech..."
darcysmith Member since:
2006-04-12

"It would have been just slightly more intuitive to remove the 'J' prefix"

The reason for that was that the compiler messages when you mixed java.awt.* and javax.swing.* were confusing. Rather than fix the compiler (which admitedly would be a hard thing to do for this particular problem) they chose to rename the components. If less people used the .* form of importing the world would be a better place...


"And the Import JavaX (javax? is that java extension? or just another random suffix?)"

The original idea of the "javax" package was that things would move from javax to java when they were placed into the "standard" library. The problem is that that breaks everyones code, and nobody wants to change the imports. They could have provided a tool to alter the imports but that would still wind up leaving the binaries broken. They could have provided a tool to handle the binaries but that is just a hack.

So the decision was to place it into javax and leave it there (same with othr things taht moved from standard extensions into the standard).

They could not put it into the "java" package as some things, such as Netscape Navigator would not allow non-approved classes into the java package.

So, Jxxx to not have naming collisions with java.awt and javax as it started out as an extension and it is too hard to change it to java now.

..darcy

Edited 2006-04-12 00:37

Reply Parent Score: 1