Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!motcid!murphyn
From: murphyn@motcid.UUCP (Neal P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Display PostScript graphics questions
Keywords: PostScript,AIX,X
Message-ID: <4592@bone13.UUCP>
Date: 7 Sep 90 15:52:52 GMT
References: <1990Aug31.182514.28517@ibmpcug.co.uk> <24279@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Heights, IL
Lines: 25

bb@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes:

>by handicapping them with X.  NextStep is so much nicer (read: better
>designed, factor of 100 more productive to program), that you will
>produce interfaces in a week that would take you several months (I'm
>amortizing training times in here also) to reproduce in X.  But, don't

>Challenge: I bet that you cannot give me reasons to use X (by private
>email, please), that I cannot demonstrate to be flawed or outright
>incorrect.  You have already stated that you are going to use an

I agree with you completely: NeXTStep is an order of magnitude faster
than (at least) UIMX. But you should compare apples to apples; NeXTStep
is an interface management system/interface design tool, whereas X is
a collection of functions that facilitate a windowed system, much like
Apple's Macintosh ToolKit, Suns's Sunview and NeWS, and MS Windows.

If you are designing applications to run on a single system, NeXTStep
is the way to go. However, if you are designing applications to run on
a network (where the application runs on one of a number of remote machines,
while the graphical display is handled on one of any number of display
machines), then X is the kit to use.


NPN