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 113901
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Swing... blech...
by smitty on Tue 11th Apr 2006 20:04 UTC 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[5]: Swing... blech...
by situation on Tue 11th Apr 2006 21:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Swing... blech..."
situation Member since:
2006-01-10

The J components are named as they are to be different from the AWT components, which are just named things like "Button".
Just thought that should be cleared up, check out the Java API for more name details.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Swing... blech...
by tmack on Tue 11th Apr 2006 21:07 in reply to "RE[4]: Swing... blech..."
tmack Member since:
2006-04-11

Swing is an extension of AWT. AWT widgets are native widgets, somewhat like SWT. AWT, however, uses the lowest common widget scheme where if ALL supported platforms don't implement a certain widget, it isn't included in AWT. SWT implements any widgets not available.

Why is this relevant?

If you see an official widget class, like a text box, you know if it's an AWT or Swing widget by the class name.

TextField is AWT
JTextField is Swing

This way you don't have to resort to fully qualified class names in a Java class if you happen to use both types of widgets in the same class. It also makes things CLEARER.

Also, javax is a "proprietary" non-standard package (.NET's copy of this is called a "namespace") for Java classes.

The more you know. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4