Re: swing performance (was Re: Cello Rising ...)
From: Kenny Tilton (ktilton_at_nyc.rr.com)
Date: 01/31/04
- Next message: Gareth McCaughan: "Re: Cello Rising [was Re: Lisp's future]"
- Previous message: Bulent Murtezaoglu: "Re: Cello Rising"
- In reply to: Brian Mastenbrook: "Re: swing performance (was Re: Cello Rising ...)"
- Next in thread: pete kirkham: "Re: swing performance (was Re: Cello Rising ...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:07:46 GMT
Brian Mastenbrook wrote:
> In article <NoJSb.168486$4F2.19804356@twister.nyc.rr.com>, Kenny Tilton
> <ktilton@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ray Blaak wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Though at least Java looks like aqua on OS X, unlike X11. But (AFAIK)
>>>>that's Apple's doing, not Sun's.
>>
>>Could be. IIUC, they have similarly produced a GLUT (OpenGL Window
>>Manager Lite) for OS X built on Aqua, so GLUT windows play nicely with
>>other native OS X windows.
>
>
> That's not a silver bullet that suddenly makes your apps feel like
> Aqua. It must means they aren't running in the X server. You'll need to
> examine HIView if you really want to actually look like Aqua.
Well, it's all greek to me. OS X is next month. I looked at some of the
Aqua GLUT code and saw code that looked native, so I guessed the GLUT
windows would simply be native windows. But I do not know enough yet
even to understand what you wrote.
> Why does it seem that you tout the libraries your project is based on
> so much? What does that do for the actual mechanics of using Cello? You
> still need to write the code that turns ImageMagick, OpenGL, and GLUT
> into an actual cohesive library with a good API.
>
> I have in fact noticed a trend among many vaporware projects that they
> tend to tout the libraries they are based on more than the project
> itself.
I'm sorry, the libraries are mostly fixes to problems I created by
targeting portability, so the celebration you hear in me is over having
solved what I thought were show-stopping problems. The one definite
exception was ImageMagick, but Tim says that sucks so mebbe not. All the
things I am getting from these libraries are available if I hardcode for
CAPI or Common Graphics and for win32 or x11, and I lost them all when I
opted for portability via OpenGL. I was actually quite discouraged about
the whole thing until I opened my eyes and saw FTGL. So, again, I am
talking about the libraries for the problems they solve, not for their
added value.
That said, there /are/ some pluses other than portability (the only
thing I cared about):
-- OpenGL: wicked functionality, hardware accelerated
-- Freeglut: none.
-- FTGL: Extruded, scalable, lotsa kinds
-- ImageMagick: Photoshop and Illustrator In A Drum
-- Supercollider: the Lisp of programmable sound
-- Cells: <g>
btw, am I to understand now that the latest defense of CLIM is that
Cello is built atop quality, portable, free libraries? This acrimonious
thread bears a surprising amount of technical agreement.
:)
kenny
-- http://tilton-technology.com Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
- Next message: Gareth McCaughan: "Re: Cello Rising [was Re: Lisp's future]"
- Previous message: Bulent Murtezaoglu: "Re: Cello Rising"
- In reply to: Brian Mastenbrook: "Re: swing performance (was Re: Cello Rising ...)"
- Next in thread: pete kirkham: "Re: swing performance (was Re: Cello Rising ...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
