Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 7:38 am Post subject: What was the Rationale of using Java?
Just interested in why it was chosen to use Java to port OpenOffice.org to Aqua instead of porting OpenOffice.org to Objective-C++, and using more "native" libraries?
I have not (yet) done any serious development on the mac, but am interested in starting (though I will likely start with much simpler programs first, rather than OpenOffice.org).
Excellent progress, btw. This is the only version of OpenOffice.org that I can stand on the mac, despite niggling issues (mainly relating to the single-button mouse)
most of the history has been put into the wiki, but the short version was something like this:
ed and dan go to do a full coccoa version. looks pretty, but crashes.
patrick decides to remove the x11 dependacies using Java. it works. really well.
fast forward through time and space. here we are.
*Blasphemous statement ahead*
Many faithful Mac users have acknowleged that Mr. J's RDF and stubborness is out of control relative to the 1-button mouse and have ditched it in favor of a 2 or more button version. OS X is ready to handle them natively.
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject: Mice in Mac OS X
While I acknoledge that 2-button mice are better (And indeed I much prefer one), it isn't an option for me.
I use the iBooks, you see, and dragging a second mouse with me whenever I goto a lecture room just so that I could do a rightclick isnt' really worth it.
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 8:14 pm Post subject:
Jake underlined the historical reasons, but really there's some fundamental reasons too...
ObjC++/Cocoa are incredibly mismatched to OOo. OOo has its own procedural style widget set. Cocoa is a framework...frameworks really work only if you program to the framework; it's very difficult to shoehorn a framework to a program that doesn't follow its rules.
That's a bit simplistic, but is kind of the reason why Cocoa sucks for porting large GUIs from other platforms.
Joined: Sep 18, 2003 Posts: 434 Location: London, UK
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:11 am Post subject:
Guest wrote:
jakeOSX wrote:
most of the history has been put into the wiki, but the short version was something like this:
ed and dan go to do a full coccoa version. looks pretty, but crashes.
patrick decides to remove the x11 dependacies using Java. it works. really well.
fast forward through time and space. here we are.
*Blasphemous statement ahead*
Many faithful Mac users have acknowleged that Mr. J's RDF and stubborness is out of control relative to the 1-button mouse and have ditched it in favor of a 2 or more button version. OS X is ready to handle them natively.
*Please carry on*
I know I shouldn't answer this, but... red rag and all that...
There is actually a very good reason that Apple stick with a one button mouse policy that has absolutely nothing to do with any RDF - it encourages application developers to actually think about how people will use their application's interface. As they know that the majority of their users will only have a one button mouse, it discourages them from getting sloppy with their design by putting things in contextual menus that a) don't need to be there and, more importantly, b) are only there and no where else.* As soon as an application developer starts depending on the presence of contextual menus to achieve user interactions then they have failed in the design of their interface, plain and simple.
* Though Apple have broken this cardinal rule themselves in the 10.4 Finder - the Slideshow option is only available through the contextual/action menu, sigh. _________________ PBG4, 1.5GHz, SuperDrive, 1GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, 5400rpm 80GB HD, MacOS X 10.4.5
* Though Apple have broken this cardinal rule themselves in the 10.4 Finder - the Slideshow option is only available through the contextual/action menu, sigh.
Of course, there is nearly universal agreement that the Finder is the most broken/buggy Mac OS X app out there
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
"...As they know that the majority of their users will only have a one button mouse,"
But who has always contolled and continues to control that? A chicken and egg thing... He can solve that problem on the hardware end but chooses not to. (Not really true since OS X is muti-button capable out of the box, but why go only half way, the Mac hardware has now caught up to the darkside in every other area but believe it or not many people still cite, rightly or wrongly, a 1-button mouse as a reason for not switching?
P.S. and I meant to quote the orig. poster who first mentioned the one-button mouse in my first post.
Joined: Sep 18, 2003 Posts: 434 Location: London, UK
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 6:22 am Post subject:
Guest wrote:
Sard said:
"...As they know that the majority of their users will only have a one button mouse,"
But who has always contolled and continues to control that? A chicken and egg thing... He can solve that problem on the hardware end but chooses not to. (Not really true since OS X is muti-button capable out of the box, but why go only half way, the Mac hardware has now caught up to the darkside in every other area but believe it or not many people still cite, rightly or wrongly, a 1-button mouse as a reason for not switching?
P.S. and I meant to quote the orig. poster who first mentioned the one-button mouse in my first post.
The point is, it isn't a problem - there isn't any fundamental need for a two button mouse on a Mac because the apps do not (or should not) require one because they are better designed from the ground up to function without a second button. However, apps and the OS itself on a Windows box practically necessitate that you have a two button mouse to be able to function because they are so poorly designed with respect to the end user's interaction.
There are so many wrong reasons why people won't buy a Mac and this is just another one of them... from my experience, educating them is the only way you'll get them to buy a Mac and even then most will still find some excuse not to - purely because of a fear of the "unknown" and the herd mentality... you'll show them how much better the Mac OS is at doing the things they want to do and they still end up getting a PC because of some entrenched FUD. That's just the way it is.
I'll stop here as this is one of those arguments that can go on forever... _________________ PBG4, 1.5GHz, SuperDrive, 1GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, 5400rpm 80GB HD, MacOS X 10.4.5
"...As they know that the majority of their users will only have a one button mouse,"
But who has always contolled and continues to control that? A chicken and egg thing... He can solve that problem on the hardware end but chooses not to. (Not really true since OS X is muti-button capable out of the box, but why go only half way, the Mac hardware has now caught up to the darkside in every other area but believe it or not many people still cite, rightly or wrongly, a 1-button mouse as a reason for not switching?
P.S. and I meant to quote the orig. poster who first mentioned the one-button mouse in my first post.
The point is, it isn't a problem - there isn't any fundamental need for a two button mouse on a Mac because the apps do not (or should not) require one because they are better designed from the ground up to function without a second button. However, apps and the OS itself on a Windows box practically necessitate that you have a two button mouse to be able to function because they are so poorly designed with respect to the end user's interaction.
There are so many wrong reasons why people won't buy a Mac and this is just another one of them... from my experience, educating them is the only way you'll get them to buy a Mac and even then most will still find some excuse not to - purely because of a fear of the "unknown" and the herd mentality... you'll show them how much better the Mac OS is at doing the things they want to do and they still end up getting a PC because of some entrenched FUD. That's just the way it is.
I'll stop here as this is one of those arguments that can go on forever...
JKT, you're one of the "good guys" so I too will stop here, as I see your side of the discussion and 7 to 5 years ago I would have agreed with it. I'm convinced now adays, it simply is hurting sales but I'm not at the weekly/monthly Apple mtgs., (but boy would I love to be a fly on the wall at those!) and so don't see what figures the marketing research guys are putting on the easel (do they still use those or do they just project the Powerbook onto a drop down screen?). Anything that will increase marketshare should be employed in my mind.
Ironically, the same argument that comes to mind to say "go ahead Apple, sell that 2-button mouse" is the one that could be used to counter the effort here with Neo/J, a project I'm fully on board with and that is,
"But, but, but, it's a way of life in the windoze world the 2-button mouse is, if you can't beat it, join it" (just as one could say "But, but, but, it's an M$ Word world, if ...") But in this case, I really want Neo/J to succeed. I think a 2-button mouse can only help that effort.
Have a great holiday weekend and keep up the good fight!
I know I shouldn't answer this, but... red rag and all that...
There is actually a very good reason that Apple stick with a one button mouse policy that has absolutely nothing to do with any RDF - it encourages application developers to actually think about how people will use their application's interface. As they know that the majority of their users will only have a one button mouse, it discourages them from getting sloppy with their design by putting things in contextual menus that a) don't need to be there and, more importantly, b) are only there and no where else.* As soon as an application developer starts depending on the presence of contextual menus to achieve user interactions then they have failed in the design of their interface, plain and simple.
* Though Apple have broken this cardinal rule themselves in the 10.4 Finder - the Slideshow option is only available through the contextual/action menu, sigh.
1) Also, "Show package contents" in Finder.
2) Here, here. One of the biggest UI frustrations coming from Mac to Windows is trying to find a command to do something, looking through every menubar-based command, and not finding it - only to discover later that the command is *only* available in right-click context menu, in a toolbar button, or as a keyboard shortcut.
All commands should be available in the menubar system. The context menu, toolbar, and kb shortcuts are only for alternative methods of invoking, not primary methods of invoking.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
