Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!otter!grg
From: grg@otter.hpl.hp.com (Gerd Groos)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: C_Talk review and final review if CommonView C++.
Message-ID: <10960009@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 25 Aug 89 16:58:32 GMT
References: <5258@umd5.umd.edu>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 28

In your "CommonView review", you say

   1. "I found it to be mostly broken."
   2. "The class library is really bad"
   3. "The examples won't hold water."
   4. "[No improvements] will happen."
   5. You don't like C++ (thought you posted a note saying you would
      a while ago?)

4. is a speculation.
5. is your opinion - nobody is forced to use a certain programming language

Would you mind translating "mostly broken", "bad", "hold water" into
more technical terms? I just don't understand what you are saying...

From my experience I think it's quite usable. Maybe I just didn't notice
it didn't work?

Some things I would like to know about C_Talk:

   - How fast are C_Talk programs compared to C++ programs
   - Does C_Talk produce MS Window applications (like CommonView)
   - If yes, are you limited to the subset of MS Window functions 
     implemented in C_Talk or is there a way of accessing the others?
   - What makes C_Talks window class library better than CommonViews?


                  Gerd.