Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!richsun!emike
From: emike@richsun.UUCP (E. Mike Durbin)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Sun's OPENLOOK vs AT&T's OPENLOOK
Message-ID: <391@richsun.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 89 18:29:50 GMT
References: <2899@cuuxb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: emike@richsun.UUCP (E. Mike Durbin)
Organization: RICH Inc. , Franklin Park,IL
Lines: 30

-------------------
First, Hi Jack!

Second, OPENLOOK is not an implementation, but only a well defined "look
and feel".  This is different than DECwindows, HP's New Wave, Apollo's
Open Dialog, etc., which are IMPLEMENTATIONs that provide the companies
"look and feel".

Therefore, OPENLOOK's "look and feel" can be provided by MANY
implementations. Sun's Xview and AT&T XT+ were two known implementations
from the start.

I haven't used either, but I have programmed in SunView (Xview provides
almost the same programmer's interface) and with the Athena
toolkit (XT) which is widget (and Intrinsics) based.

There are advantages to a functional interface, as provided by Xview (memory
requirements, existing software, etc.).  There are also advantages to widgets,
e.g. XT+ (object-oriented benifits, extendable, etc.).  I prefer widgets,
but you have to judge based on you applications. I expect that both will be
portable.  Sun will donate an Xview library to the X consortium, and I must
believe that AT&T will do the same with XT+ (if they don't, you should
seriously concider something else, like MOTIF, if there is ever a public
implementation).

We can talk offline if you want more info.

E. Mike Durbin
Manager - X Workstation Development
Rich - A Reuter Company.