Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru
From: marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: What's what in OPEN LOOK/OpenWindows (long)
Message-ID: <836@auto-trol.UUCP>
Date: 21 Sep 90 19:22:21 GMT
References: <9009191654.AA05730@spiff> <1990Sep20.165120.14156@alphalpha.com> <rhoward.653919896@romeo>
Reply-To: marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky)
Organization: Auto-trol Technology, Denver
Lines: 52

In article <rhoward.653919896@romeo> rhoward@msd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>
>From a *user* standpoint it's the L&F that matter (along with consistency
>of the applications that 'comply' to that L&F).  I understand developers
>wanting a good toolkit, but for the users the L&F is what counts.  I don't
>think any developer is going to be able to say to his customers "Hey, we
>chose the best toolkit to enhance our productivity.  We got the app to 
>market faster that way."  Well, this is a nice argument considering that
>if the app is long getting to market nobody benefits but that won't win
>you any long term customers.  They ultimately want the 'best' product.
>
   Thanx for finally trying to define how we measure the toolkit SUPRIORITY.
   From your posting (not entirely replicated here, sorry), it seems that
   the SPECIFICATION is what matters. Thoug right obove you say the
   'best' product.

   Now, if you allow me to disagree (flame on?).
   I have the OL Specification on my bookshelf (I even went through it...). 
   I also have OSF/Motif style guide there, along with it's AES
   
   So I have 3 documents:
   OL: Specification telling the TOOLKIT developer how the individual element
       must look, feel etc.
   Motif Style Guide: Specification teling me what CONCEPTS should the
       TOOLKIT and APPLICATION programmer follow, and what controls should
       be used (feel) for example component classes (not which classes should
       be implemented and how).
   Motif AES: Specification describing OSF's implementation of Motif Style
       Guide, i.e. programmer's reference manual.

   I am finding it rather difficult to judge OL versus Motif based on the
   documents above. Sure, It's easier to implement Open Look compliant
   toolkit, as everything is defined (just go and code). On the other hand,
   Motif leaves me more free to implement my objects, for my specific
   needs. Is that bad ? I don't think so.

   So, if I would accept your approach of judging toolkits by their
   specifications, I find it difficult to pick a winner. Now, when it comes
   to real judgement, I agree that the customer is the judge (though press
   would like to jump in). The customer ultimatly wants the 'best'
   product. And for that matter, I would let the customer decide, over
   the period of few years, what is the 'best' product, and quit any
   statements about superiority for now.

   Besides. It is IBM PC (and clones) with MS-DOS that the customer found
   the 'best' - and buys it, and buys it. Has this ever been a SUPERIOR
   technology ?
-- 
=*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*=
Martin Brunecky                   marbru@auto-trol.COM
(303) 252-2499                    {...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru
Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404