Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!gilgalad From: gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: X (was Re: NeXT & Interface Builders) Message-ID: <1990Oct19.075445.12417@engin.umich.edu> Date: 19 Oct 90 07:54:45 GMT References: <123395@linus.mitre.org> <2356@trlluna.trl.oz> <6828@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: news@engin.umich.edu (CAEN Netnews) Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor Lines: 44 In article <6828@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >This means that X programs are very large, and very complicated. It also >means that X requires a lot more horsepower from the application processor >than higher level systems like MGR or NeWS. No doubt about it. Even simple X applications can run over a meg easily. >Another result? Bigger and more complex toolkits that wrap the program >around the user interface. Ahhh, but the toolkits provide such a nice environment. >> I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or >> Intuition or Windows. Actually, X and Intuition are very similar. >You're not a programmer. You can get the same results from MS-DOS or AmigaOS, >but it's a hell of a lot harder when you basically have to rewrite the O/S >every time you write a program. X is to windowing as DOS is to operating >systems. I disagree, with the Xtoolkit, it is a snap to produce stuff. There are some very nice things in X (and the toolkit) for programmers. There are some things in X that should be in Intuition. >Hands up everyone here who likes DOS. Count me out there! 8-) Give me UNIX and Amiga OS (concurrently preferably 8-) >Peter da Silva. `-_-' >. See ya, Ralph gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ralph Seguin | "You mean THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?" 536 South Forest | Apartment 915 | "No. Haven't you heard, I come in six packs!" Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | (313) 662-4805