Talk:Applet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Java (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Is it really an applet?[edit]

The article claims notepad, or paint are applets, later defined to be not "full-featured application programs". But I'd argue that paint or the other preinstalled windows applications don't fit that definition.

Text in question: "Examples of applications often classified as applets are all of the accessories bundled in Microsoft Windows (such as Windows Notepad or Microsoft Paint). Applets are not full-featured application programs, and are intended to be easily accessible.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:f000:700:5d2c:4c56:bf22:751a (talkcontribs)

You're right, desk accessories are not typically considered applets; who wrote that might be confusing the concept with transient and auxiliary applications. Only accessories that run under a common widget engine are called applets. I've corrected the article. Diego (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

  cvcv

aa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.50 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

Although it appears that no one has commented much on the topic, I found in the entry on widgets that the part of it pertaining to Apple dashboard widgets and Yahoo widgets has been suggested to be merged with the Applet article. Using the definition of an applet as a minor application that runs inside another application, this would make sense. However, when a person thinks of an applet, they don't think of a Widget for one of these engines. Also, when you mention a widget, people don't think about the term applet either. If they were merged, people visiting the applet page would be suprized to find information on widgets, and people looking for information on widgets would have to work harder to find their information.

The trouble is that the word "applet" isn't really used that much in the Windows world ( with the possible exception of the old(er) developers ), the word is more commonly associated with the Mac. "Widget" is a good modern name to describe a small, simple desktop application which usually has a single purpose ( like most Mac dashboard widgets ), so based on that I believe merging would just cause more confusion. Widget is definitely not a buzzword, I have personally been using the word for years to describe mini-applications for Windows and Mac systems, and I will continue to do so seeing as most modern developers understand what you're talking about when you drop "widget" into a conversation.
To be honest I think that the GUI related text ( text fields, checkboxes, etc ) should be moved into it's own "Components" page ( again, this may just be an old-school vs new-school way of thinking ), and the desktop applications section should remain under "Widgets".
Nutrox 13:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
GUI Components have been called Widgets since they debuted in the Xerox Star OS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.34.246.39 (talkcontribs).
Yes, Widget has stood for GUI components much longer than the more recent meaning of small desktop application. —Doug Bell talk 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)..

Link suggestions[edit]

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Applet article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Applet}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Definition source[edit]

In a simple Google search for "Define Applet," the number of sources claiming that only Java applets count is overwhelming. I think we need a good source telling the original definition. I don't feel qualified to do this because I can't be sure how many sources are getting their definitions from Wikipedia.

That is only what I consider the most important source to find. In fact this article cites no sources, so I'm marking it accordingly.--Brilliand 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Crapplet[edit]

Any reference to "crapplet" on this page seems like a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. Am I wrong? AdamMorton 05:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't invent the term, but it is often used synonymously, in a perjorative sense, for "applet". Pointing out the fact that this usage exists is quite NPOV, the usage is not being recommended, merely pointed out. There are countless examples of this on Wikipedia, eg. the User article mentions the "Luser" term. Many people do indeed refer to such programs as "crapplets", I'm not necessarily endorsing that, I'm just pointing out a common usage. Artipol 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed unnecessary, useless and offensive example in the above paragraph. Todd 88.251.228.231 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the part that is not WP:NPOV is where you say "due to the fact that they are rarely useful for serious usage". The user (computing) example is definitely a relevant one. I guess you could make a "crapplet" entry and add it to a "See Also" heading... i don't know why "Compare" was used in User, as it is not a standard heading. I don't think crapplet really deserves an entry though, because Wikipedia is not a jargon or slang guide. The same probably applies to Luser. AdamMorton 00:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"small application" as "applet"[edit]

If the primary definition of applet is going to be "a small application like notepad" as User:Artipol suggests, then that would require pretty extensive reorganization of this article, as subsequent sections are all working under the assumption that an applet is "a software component that runs in the context of another program". Using the "small application" definition makes the rest of the article inconsistent.

Note that the "small application" definition is more-or-less a verbatim copy of the CNET glossary version which according to archive.org has existed since at least late 1996. It is possibly a copyright issue as it now stands. Also, anecdotally (meaning via google search) I don't see a lot of support for that "small application" use of "applet". But, of course, this is an article with no citations, so, who knows? AdamMorton 05:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the rest of the article to a more suitable topic, eg. "browser plug-in" or similar. I was unaware of the CNET definition, any resemblance is coincidental. I guess there are only so many ways to concisely and clearly define the same term. I have changed it a bit so there is less resemblance. Anyway the term has been widely used eg. in reviews of operating systems, for at least 20 years, probably longer. Using the term to describe Java software or whatever is a twisting of the original definition, which predates Java, WWW etc. The vast majority of Java programs do seem to be (cr)applets, but this does not mean all applets are Java program. Artipol 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On rereading, i don't think even your original text was close enough to be a copyright violation. There is a survey of online dictionary definitions which has both uses of the word that are currently in this article, plus usage specifically as a java applet. You might want to add your definition to the Wiktionary:Applet page as well. AdamMorton 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

AmigaOS[edit]

I've removed the reference to AmigaOS bundled applications in the second paragraph. These are not examples that many readers will be familiar with, and reads like a contrived attempt to throw in Amiga references wherever. I was a big fan of the Amiga but this is just self-serving. Chris 17:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


A mistake?[edit]

From the article: "The term was introduced in AppleScript in 2010." I guess that's a mistake (currently I don't have the knowledge to fix it) Orimosenzon (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Those minor factual inaccuracies are often due to vandalism. In such cases, look the article's history to see if the change was recent, and revert it. Diego (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup.. that's what I should have done (just didn't think of it). Thanks Orimosenzon (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Applets and routines Section[edit]

Can anyone find a cite for this section? And any thoughts on which section this might be appropriate for (such as 'Applets as extension of other software' i.e. Internet Explorer), or removed (perhaps its already discussed in Java Applets? Jwoodger (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Applet orignally comes from AppleScript"[edit]

  • Source? I thought that since an applet is like a mini-application, the word was a combinition of application (app) and -let (which is a suffix that denotes something of smaller size). Even my Apple-based Dictionary says this is the origin of the word--98.149.214.120 (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you're right. Here is a definition at http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/applet : applet by 1995, a dim. formation from application. I think the incorrect statement should be removed. Romanian definition from www.stilxxi.ro/pagini/dictionar-termeni-internet.php (website currently unavailable): "Un applet este forma diminutivata pentru app (aplicatie), cu referire la programe simple, cu o singura functie, distribuite foarte des impreuna cu produse complexe" which means "An applet is the diminutive form for app(lication), refering to simple, one-function programs, distributed very often together with complex products". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.186.177.250 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Applets are used to provide interactive features to web applications that cannot be provided by HTML alone."[edit]

(in section "Web-Based Applets")

This is no longer the case, since the advent and standardization of the HTML5 canvas tag. Not sure how to reword, since this whole section sets up a dichotomy between "HTML" and "Applets", which is now obsolete.