Joi Ellis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2001, Ole Jacob Taraldset wrote:
>
> > They are going to say why isn't the Linux jre compatible with the
> > windows version?
>
> No JRE in the world can compensate for lazy programmers.
Agreed! And yet....
Although I dont have a better solution at hand, IMHO a lot of
AWT (& Swing inherits enough of this) represents an opportunity
missed.
Many of us started out with Java years ago writting Applets ---
and discovered there was no access to enough info about the
browser to do a decent job (background colors, font size, etc).
That's unchanged, and Swing _effectively_ isn't available to
"most" browsers.
And though there are some nice ideas in layout managers, the
way they work doesn't seem to lend itself to IDE's. The
"Put a widget here" operation doesn't end up vary scalable/portable.
[I'd be happy if IDE's have advanced since I last looked....]
You have to develop an entirely different mindset to portably
layout an application using layout managers (in Emacs) than you
do using an IDE. (& GridBagLayout's a bear in any case! :>)
So it's not surprising that "lazy programmers" take the easy route.
And finally, it would have been nice if the "Standard Font Set"
also had some standard font metrics! Although the situation has
improved somewhat, many early JVMs had really bad font metrics,
particularly SGI's font heights were completely wrong. Even
still, the characteristics of the fonts on different systems can
be quite different.
Consequently, even when you layout an application "Correctly", it
often will look good on one system and lousy on another. Assuming
that they (the programmer) is in error, they will then "Tune" it
so it looks better on their development platform --- and consequently
even worse on others.
Sigh...
----------------
Bruce Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
