>If you need to deliver your app fast then sluggish (Java) is better than not working at all.
I don't think this is how it works, at least in the OS X market. I never seen any but 2-3 Java apps become popular, and none that much. All the popular, successful apps are native.
So, you can maybe deliver faster with Java (doubt it, since you'll have to implement all the Cocoa goodies and cool integration APIs by yourself) but it wont get you that far.
Apple has since dropped Java, but back in the day, it was one of the primary supported development environments for Mac OS X. There was a full Cocoa bridge, and you could write native-looking applications in Java.
At least one of the built-in apps on early versions of Mac OS X (10.0/10.1?) was actually Java/Cocoa -- I want to say TextEdit, but I'm not certain. Soon after, of course, everything got ported to Objective-C.
>Apple has since dropped Java, but back in the day, it was one of the primary supported development environments for Mac OS X. There was a full Cocoa bridge, and you could write native-looking applications in Java.
Only up until Tiger. And you still had the "uncanny value" effect, despite the native-ish look and feel to Swing.
Plus, even SUN and then Oracle abandoned Java on the desktop.
I don't think this is how it works, at least in the OS X market. I never seen any but 2-3 Java apps become popular, and none that much. All the popular, successful apps are native.
So, you can maybe deliver faster with Java (doubt it, since you'll have to implement all the Cocoa goodies and cool integration APIs by yourself) but it wont get you that far.