From: Zach Dennis <zdennis@...>
Date: 2004-11-26T13:11:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby GUIs and installation effort

David Ross wrote:
> Dave Burt wrote:
> 
>>> Sure. This type of framework would be more flexible, but what about
>>> the people who use different languages? I definiately don't want to
>>> embed/use a ruby based gui frame work. Eclipse is an abomination
>>> to any work for me. This type of framework you describe can be
>>> real bothersome to people. There is no way to tackle the issue of GUIs
>>> because everybody has thier own choice. (ex. BSD vs. Linux) I could 
>>> argue
>>> all day about the annoyances in each and every GUI toolkit out there,
>>> even WideStudio. The GUI toolkit choice is up to the user, if the 
>>> develoer
>>> has a disagreement with design in the code... send patches. There is no
>>> thing as a perfect toolkit.
>>>
>>> David Ross
>>>   
>>
>>
>> I disagree that it's unhelpful.
>>
>> Look at Swing - a minimum of native components, with many lightweight 
>> widgets based on these. This means loose binding to the platform and 
>> hence better/easier portability.
>>  
>>
> I've to agree with everybody else on this small fact. Swing is slow
> as molasses, and everyone that creates a big apps with Java using
> guis knows how slow Java can be.

I don't entirely agree here.

  I believe that MagicDraw UML is
> the program which is offering thier apps in a Java to C++ compiler
> due to the slowness of Java, the Swing is so bloated the program
> operates so slow its terrifying.

Swing is bloated yes, but it is not as slow as you suggest. I disagree 
on reasons for developing software written in java which does heavy 
calculation and graphical manipulation.

Zach