Scary to think that the team that wrote SWT have no clue how to make it fast.
However since Eclipse is plenty fast on Windows, I think that the team is more than likely a bunch of Windows developers who are writing extremely poor ports of SWT to the other operating systems.
OS X is a prime example of this. Writing the SWT in Carbon is just plain laziness. There is absolutely no excuse for it. And while carbon apps are not slow, it is clear that the developers who wrote the OS X port did a fairly bad job of it.
Java will not really take off until it is included with every Linux distro and can be fully embraced by the Open Source community.
What exactly is your definition of taking off? Java is simply HUGE in the corporate environments. Java is used in just about every industry. While it may not be the largest thing in the Open Source community, it has definitely already "taken off".
Hopefully you (and those reading this) realize that Java has had Just In Time compilers for a long time now. Java code actually gets faster (if properly written of course) as it runs. I am sure Mono does this also but it is definitely not something that is exclusive to the Mono project.
Just don't use SWT on Mac OSX. It is a horrible implementation that is slower than Swing on the same machine.
What were they thinking implementing SWT in Carbon. Even that is not an excuse for the slowness though. About the only full blown java IDE that is slower than Eclipse on OSX is Netbeans:(
How odd. I use my 12" in a dual monitor at work and at home. Not only does it remember the configuration when I put it to sleep, it realizes that I am using a different monitor at home and changes everything to match it.
What a fucking idiot. Try realizing that the bold denotes emphases on the word and when you read the parent that it replied to, a normal person would realize that the emphases was designed to reference his implication that a PowerBook cannot be used in a professional setting.
The tying of the OS to the Hardware is a BONUS not a negative. While you cannot remove Aqua as the Desktop manager on OS X (and who would want to) you can customize it very easily. You obviously speak out of ignorance when it comes to OS X.
Of course if you think Windows is a better than OS X then you need to seek professional help or you really have not been paying attention at all to the world around you.
Opinions are a great thing. Even though yours is seriously flawed in many many ways, at least you have one of your own.
Linux may be infinitely customizable it is also significantly harder to use and a lot less polished than OS X. I use Linux on my servers, it works great. On my desktop I run OS X. Using Linux on your desktop, right now, is a waste of time. You spend more time "customizing" the operating system than you do getting any work done. But I guess that is ok when you are in tbe basement but does not work too well in the business world.
I look forward to the day Linux works even half as well on the Desktop that OS X does. Then I can recycle all of these Windows machines in the office into KDE/Linux machines and remove all of the virus threats.
I don't own one so I am not going to comment on a machine that I have not used. But considering it can run a faster hard drive than my notebook and can have a second processor I am betting it would run quite nice.
You have some real issues there. Afraid that people are going to switch from your beloved Windows and all your Visual Basic "l33t skillz" will be wasted?
Well this is a bunch of horseshit. The G4 runs applications perfectly well. I develop professional applications on my PowerBook all day long and there is no issue with its speed.
I know of several people a few of which are into professional video and audio editing and they have no issues with their PowerBooks either. Hell some of them are using models from a couple of years ago.
Comments like this are pure FUD. Yes the G5 is great, can't wait to get one in a PowerBook, but the G4 PowerBooks work very well.
Whoever modded this as interesting needs to be flogged.
Or you can just open up that zip file that comes with every distribution of Sun's java named src.zip.
Of course this argument is over the binary java, javac, etc. The source code to the libraries have always been available for review. You don't need a bloated IDE to view the source code of the libraries.
When I look at the icons on my OS X desktop, I see that the Icon itself is quite a bit larger than the text and a whole lot easier to hit than the filename itself. As a matter of fact it takes quite a bit of aiming to hit the filename.
Clearly you come from a windows-centric view point. The Mac OS works quite a bit differently than the poor clone that is windows. While you may not like it given the clearly limited exposure that you have had with the OS, not only does it work, it works very well.
Over the past year, I have seen quite a few people change from windows to Mac OS. At first they are a little confused by how everything works but in the end they find themselves more productive. This is not by accident. And while some of the things may seem odd coming from a windows background, they blend together well.
BTW, from my point of view, having drive letters instead of one directory structure is strange and awkward. Just because it makes sense to one group of users does not make it right.
And who's convention is it breaking? Mac OS has been around a long time.
Just because windows does it one way does not make it a convention. In that vein having one directory structure instead of breaking it up into "drive letters" is breaking a convention.
So because the operating system is designed for you to select the Icon instead of selecting the filename, the OS is to blame because you are used to selecting the filename?
I switched over to OSX about a year ago from Linux/Windows and while the first few times I selected an icon I clicked on the filename, it did not take me long to learn to select the icon instead.
Why blame the OS for your bad habits? If the convention is to select the filename instead of the icon, why have an icon at all? Selecting the filename is just a bad habit that some people have gotten into.
If you do not have gnome/gtk2 installed you are forced to use the motif implementation of SWT which is horrible. That is the problem with using it with KDE.
OSX is not even close to looking like aqua and is horribly slow.
It is amazing how many people are still propagating this myth. JFC is just as fast if not faster in some cases than SWT. But don't take my word for it. Give IntelliJ a try for instance. Better IDE, written in JFC and as fast as SWT.
Now when you are dealing with a smaller memory system or a lower end processor, I have found JFC to be a lot faster and smoother than SWT. Eclipse is a flat out pig when it comes to processor power and memory.
Eclipse does a nice job on Windows but running it on some of the other platforms (KDE, and OSX are two examples) and we begin to see its problems.
In my opinion SWT is a dead end. But I guess we will see in a year or two.
BTW, I am speaking from experience. My team is developing an application using SWT and Eclipse plugins. While it is going forward nicely, it runs just as bad as the Eclipse IDE does on non-windows platforms.
Yes you can. Ejecting can be done via finder and you can import as stated above by selecting the disc in itunes and dragging the files into your library.
You can also burn to multiple drives simultaneously just using the operating system.
I admit that it is inconsistent (Calculator does this also) but I would not say that it bothers me. The functionality makes sense for this application even though it seems to break the Guidelines.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple would seem to disagree with you on this one.
Longhorn's 3D desktop just another example of MS copying Apple. Nothing new here, nothing exciting. And certainly nothing innovative on MS's part.
However since Eclipse is plenty fast on Windows, I think that the team is more than likely a bunch of Windows developers who are writing extremely poor ports of SWT to the other operating systems.
OS X is a prime example of this. Writing the SWT in Carbon is just plain laziness. There is absolutely no excuse for it. And while carbon apps are not slow, it is clear that the developers who wrote the OS X port did a fairly bad job of it.
What exactly is your definition of taking off? Java is simply HUGE in the corporate environments. Java is used in just about every industry. While it may not be the largest thing in the Open Source community, it has definitely already "taken off".
Try looking beyond OSS.
Hopefully you (and those reading this) realize that Java has had Just In Time compilers for a long time now. Java code actually gets faster (if properly written of course) as it runs. I am sure Mono does this also but it is definitely not something that is exclusive to the Mono project.
What were they thinking implementing SWT in Carbon. Even that is not an excuse for the slowness though. About the only full blown java IDE that is slower than Eclipse on OSX is Netbeans :(
Using an old monitor perhaps?
Go back to your hole.
Of course if you think Windows is a better than OS X then you need to seek professional help or you really have not been paying attention at all to the world around you.
Opinions are a great thing. Even though yours is seriously flawed in many many ways, at least you have one of your own.
Linux may be infinitely customizable it is also significantly harder to use and a lot less polished than OS X. I use Linux on my servers, it works great. On my desktop I run OS X. Using Linux on your desktop, right now, is a waste of time. You spend more time "customizing" the operating system than you do getting any work done. But I guess that is ok when you are in tbe basement but does not work too well in the business world.
I look forward to the day Linux works even half as well on the Desktop that OS X does. Then I can recycle all of these Windows machines in the office into KDE/Linux machines and remove all of the virus threats.
I don't own one so I am not going to comment on a machine that I have not used. But considering it can run a faster hard drive than my notebook and can have a second processor I am betting it would run quite nice.
You have some real issues there. Afraid that people are going to switch from your beloved Windows and all your Visual Basic "l33t skillz" will be wasted?
The sleep function on Apple notebooks work so well that the ONLY time I reboot mine is for updates.
Now if you had a windows machine I could see the complaint since putting it to sleep is rolling the dice that the sucker will come up again :)
A sure sign that Apple is doing well is when people start to complain about the boot time because they have run out of other complaints!
I know of several people a few of which are into professional video and audio editing and they have no issues with their PowerBooks either. Hell some of them are using models from a couple of years ago.
Comments like this are pure FUD. Yes the G5 is great, can't wait to get one in a PowerBook, but the G4 PowerBooks work very well.
Whoever modded this as interesting needs to be flogged.
Of course this argument is over the binary java, javac, etc. The source code to the libraries have always been available for review. You don't need a bloated IDE to view the source code of the libraries.
Clearly you come from a windows-centric view point. The Mac OS works quite a bit differently than the poor clone that is windows. While you may not like it given the clearly limited exposure that you have had with the OS, not only does it work, it works very well.
Over the past year, I have seen quite a few people change from windows to Mac OS. At first they are a little confused by how everything works but in the end they find themselves more productive. This is not by accident. And while some of the things may seem odd coming from a windows background, they blend together well.
BTW, from my point of view, having drive letters instead of one directory structure is strange and awkward. Just because it makes sense to one group of users does not make it right.
Just because windows does it one way does not make it a convention. In that vein having one directory structure instead of breaking it up into "drive letters" is breaking a convention.
I switched over to OSX about a year ago from Linux/Windows and while the first few times I selected an icon I clicked on the filename, it did not take me long to learn to select the icon instead.
Why blame the OS for your bad habits? If the convention is to select the filename instead of the icon, why have an icon at all? Selecting the filename is just a bad habit that some people have gotten into.
OSX is not even close to looking like aqua and is horribly slow.
And it works even if the address/search bar is hidden.
I was not defending the grand-parent. I wasn't even agreeing with him. You could also take a lesson in reading.
Now when you are dealing with a smaller memory system or a lower end processor, I have found JFC to be a lot faster and smoother than SWT. Eclipse is a flat out pig when it comes to processor power and memory.
Eclipse does a nice job on Windows but running it on some of the other platforms (KDE, and OSX are two examples) and we begin to see its problems.
In my opinion SWT is a dead end. But I guess we will see in a year or two.
BTW, I am speaking from experience. My team is developing an application using SWT and Eclipse plugins. While it is going forward nicely, it runs just as bad as the Eclipse IDE does on non-windows platforms.
Try reading before posting, it does wonders.
If your like me, most of your work is on that notebook and just like your body and your car, you want that sucker insured "just in case."
You can also burn to multiple drives simultaneously just using the operating system.
No addition software is required.
I admit that it is inconsistent (Calculator does this also) but I would not say that it bothers me. The functionality makes sense for this application even though it seems to break the Guidelines.
Quite a bit faster.
This could be a Panther only feature though, don't recall if it was there in Jaguar.