From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-14 12:31:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.72!wnfilter2!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C1A61A6.22695C98@worldnet.att.net> From: James Rogers X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Future with Ada References: <9v57u1$mfb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9v74ov014bc@drn.newsguy.com> <9vb24v$7fg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:31:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.28.210.193 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1008361874 63.28.210.193 (Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:31:14 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:31:14 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17929 Date: 2001-12-14T20:31:14+00:00 List-Id: Mark Lundquist wrote: > > I think any true cross-platform GUI (regardless of implementation language) > is not going to take the approach of building on top of Windows and Motif > bindings and lifting out a "common denominator" subset. Rather, it would > bypass the Windows and Motif widget sets and go all the way down to pixels. > Its internal architecture might have pervasive capabilities for emulating > Motif of Windows LAF as much as possible, but it would be a stand-alone > native GUI for running inside Windows frames or X-Windows clients. > > As a matter of fact, a native GUI is the route that Java chose. They could > have tried to isolate a "common denominator" subset and then translated it > to Windows or Motif bindings, which would have resulted in the problems you > mention. Instead they created a new native GUI that was supposed to look > just as good on either platform. The early versions were a qualified > success -- they did look "just as good" on either platform, that is to say, > not very good -- but things are better with Swing. That is the route taken for the Java Abstract Windowing Toolkit (AWT). In Java 2 the Java Foundation Classes were added. Among those classes is the Swing GUI toolkit. Swing components are mostly implemented only in Java. This allows programs to provide a consistent look and feel across target platforms. It also provides a much slower GUI interaction due to the inherent performance problems of Java. Jim Rogers Colorado Springs, Colorado USA