Linked by vodoomoth on Fri 24th Sep 2010 22:56 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 442788
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-02
And developers, and users, still hate how non-native controls look on any platform. Java as a desktop app language has always been hindered by the "Java is ugly" problem, meaning non-native controls look and act out of place. The primary improvement of .net over Java on Windows is that .net programs *look* and *act* native, which means they are native.
I admire that Sun wanted to strictly enforce portability, and thus required No External Dependencies Whatsoever, but this is a case where they took this ideal to a detrimental extreme. You can be portable and still adapt to the local system! As long as the code will run on both systems it really doesn't matter that it takes advantage of native integration on one and not another, or due to that integration looks and acts a little differently. Take firefox as an example: it's cross-platform *and* tries to look native, and largely succeeds. It may take a lot of platform specific code but the results are worth it (and Java could have chucked that code in a library where most developers would never have to care).