Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucselx!petunia!news From: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: Windows Programming Message-ID: <268840ad.1cf6@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> Date: 27 Jun 90 05:14:21 GMT References: <1990Jun23.173046.1518@chinet.chi.il.us> <1615@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407 Lines: 28 In article <1615@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >The cost of buying what is needed to do software development on the Mac (taking >full advantage of the Mac GUI) is a LOT less than for Windows, yet I'd argue >that the software took about as much to develop. > >Note that they might consider keeping the SDK at its current price, >but giving away the library and include files with Quick C (or selling >them for a more reasonable price to Quick C owners who want to play around >with Windows programming but can't afford (and perhaps don't need) the full >SDK). This may be a naive question, but just how large and complex are the library and .h files? How long would it take a "clean room" developer to write a legal clone of them? It seems to me that this could be a great boon to Windows, if there was a way for the hackers and hobbyists to access the application interface without having to fork out the price of the SDK. A few months ago I asked on this group whether there were any such libraries available, and found out that there aren't, other than Actor, which is a full language and environment, not just a library. I am interested in Actor, and as soon as I get my copy of Windows 3, I think I will order Actor. -- John Dudeck "I always ask them, How well do jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu you want it tested?" ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 -- D. Stearns