RE: GUI development language

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: albartell
>
>  >Different languages, unless you plan on using Java.
>
> That is my current direction - Java.  We are in/approaching proof of
> concept
> stage and are trying to "break" the different technologies involved with
> Java and create "rules" for deployment (i.e. Java 1.3 just doesn't cut it
> because so much has been added in the JRE for 1.6 that makes it much
> easier to run Java applications - on Windows that is).

Okay, now you're talking a different animal.  Many people consider Java
applications to not be true thick client applications because Java is in
effect a virtualization layer.  Java's UI has gotten some extreme criticism
over the years.  And while Swing is getting a little better, AWT is pretty
horrid when compared to a native application.


> > If that's the direction you're going, I'll be interested to see your
> decision making process there.
> I am hesitant to use the different technologies that haven't been around
> for at least 4 years.  Swing is getting "safe", I just haven't used it
> as much.

Swing is nearly a decade old.  SWT is the basis of Eclipse, and as such is
nearly as old.  RCP is an evolution of SWT, involving primarily unbundling
it from the Eclipse workbench.


> I don't believe I have developed with SWT at all - is that what Eclipse
> RCP
> is using?  I have debated seeing what I could develop using Eclipse RCP in
> regards to business apps...

Which brings to mind a fundamental point: do you consider WDSC to represent
the sort of thick client you're talking about?  If so, you should be able to
take a look at WDSC and point to things that would not work as well in the
browser; those would be real, concrete examples of thick client advantages.


> I think a few people have agreed with browser and a few have agreed with
> rich client.  So much of this conversation is based on where one feels
> most
> productive.  I have always felt more productive with something outside the
> browser simply because everything works better/faster.  That is obviously
> not an opinion we share so I can leave it at that.

Again, I don't disagree that thick clients perform better and have more
features.  That's the "Duh!" factor; of course they will, they aren't
limited by HTML!  The question becomes one of deployment.  You've answered
some of that by positioning yourself in the Java camp.  That will certainly
reduce some of your cross-platform issues at the cost of having a lot of
people consider your application to be "non-native" but that's a different
issue.


> Good conversation!  All business left at the door, right?  We'll have to
> go out for a cold one at iSeries DevCon in October? :-)

Yeah, I gotta get my final versions done... back to work.

Joe