Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!gjc
From: gjc@eileen.mga.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: User Interface Generation Tools
Message-ID: <66@eileen.mga.com>
Date: 11 Oct 89 11:15:43 GMT
References: <8910061259.AA06690@ford-prefect.ics.com.ics.com> <320@auto-trol.UUCP>
Organization: Mitchell and Gauthier Associates
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: marbru@auto-trol.UUCP's message of 10 Oct 89 14:38:22 GMT

In article <320@auto-trol.UUCP> marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) writes:

   However, my feeling is, that UIL is not the right solution. IF our systems
   had DYNAMIC (RUNTIME) BINDING (see OS-2 or Apollo Aegis), we could create
   the "UIL" using standard languages: C or C++, and still have all the benefits 
   of separate user interface definition (without having to invent, stabilize
   and God forbid standardize a completely new language).
   -- 

But UIL is NOT A PROCEDURAL PROGRAMMING language. It is just a description
of data. If you wanted to have data like that part of your program and you
wanted dynamic linking in a STANDARD LANGUAGE then your only choice would
be ANSI COMMON-LISP (if they ever complete the thing).

A big advantage of a non-procedural or descriptive language like UIL is
that it makes it easier to have a UIL generation program that can
write *and* read UIL files and edit them in a graphical manner.

-gjc