3 ms·
> But IIRC, AWT was not native (in the sense of "calls native OS GUI components") but only tried to look native and failed horribly at achieving that. A quick
by josefx 10y ago
> But IIRC, AWT was not native (in the sense of "calls native OS GUI components") but only tried to look native and failed horribly at achieving that.
A quick check of wikipedia backs my memory, the Java classes were just a thin wrapper around the native components. AWT was mostly bad because it was limited, it does not even have a Table.
> even the basic look because various UI components use wrong size, are placed slightly differently and so on.
The windows API does not come with a layout manager AFAIK. I vagualy remember setting every bit of relevant size/position data by hand last time I used it directly. Same could be done with AWT, so this is mostly likely caused by programmer lazyness.
- dfox 10y agoThe part about sizing being wrong was not that much about AWT (although IIRC it also has this problem, at least on Unix, where it looks decidedly non-motif) as about just about any non-native toolkit that tries to look native. Windows does not have layout manager, but has API for getting preferred sizes for various low-level UI parts (in Windows 3.1 small part of of this was even user configurable).