> You are wrong. It (gcj) is not a JVM.

libgcj is a JVM. It executes java bytecode.

> I hope you can see the difference. And I hope you can see that Sun has a project to tackle this functionality.

You're an idiot. >>12 already pointed this out.

> But it would be fair to compare complete implementations, and current ones.

You're wrong. If Java and .NET are about the same in the best case, but Java is much better than .NET in the worst case, then comparing the worst case is how you explore that. However, as you've demonstrated, you're an idiot, so I shouldn't expect you to know this.

> Net has a button class for win form apps and a button class for asp.net apps. I know the difference becuase they are in a different namespace. There is no logical reason to cal it WebButton or ASPButton when then name should always describe exactly what it is, a button.

You're a fucking knob if you need namespaces to tell the difference between web applications and desktop applications.

There's no value for an application to have equal access to both, and a significant cost: Web applications are built very differently than desktop applications. Meanwhile, because Swing is built on AWT, implementing new Swing objects requires access to AWT. Implementing a new kind of JButton by using a namespace accessor would make the implementation more complicated.

> I would think the CG should be doing a better job.

CG?