SWT is slow, Was: D : Not for me anymore

John Reimer terminal.node at gmail.com
Mon Oct 23 13:53:34 PDT 2006

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:49:07 -0700, John Reimer <terminal.node at gmail.com>  

> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:59:08 -0700, Jari-Matti Mäkelä  
> <jmjmak at utu.fi.invalid> wrote:
>> There was at least some discussion in Slashdot over two years ago:
>> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=92172&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=7929925
>> "First off, SWT only performes well on windows, and stack on top of that
>> that the principal native abstractions are taylored to a win32
>> environment. Based off of that it is easy to see how SWT performes quite
>> nicely on Windows.
>> Elsewhere it sucks. MacOS, GTK, photon, Motif. Even porrly writeen swing
>> programs outperform on those platforms."
> Again, your quote refers to Java SWT: perhaps there might be an element  
> of truth there, yet it looks more to me like prejudice since I've not  
> experienced the speed deficit issue (although, I agree that it's big and  
> slow to load, however).  DWT performs quite spritely from what I've seen  
> in a couple of projects.  The size of the code is more alarming to me  
> than anything else (the executables grow to a couple megabytes).

Okay, it occurred to me that I missed the whole point completely: the  
fellow was talking about SWT on win32 performing great (which is what DWT  
is at the moment).  So I really made no sense here since a DWT is not  
available yet on other platforms to prove that it also could perform  
well... disregard my statement.  But I still hold that I think SWT isn't  
so bad as he makes out on other platforms.  I don't fully understand what  
he means (note that I've only ever used SWT on linux and win32, though).


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list