Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: NeXT & Interface Builders Message-ID: <1990Oct22.053501.23675@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 22 Oct 90 05:35:01 GMT References: <6803@sugar.hackercorp.com> <123395@linus.mitre.org> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 27 In article sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >duncant@mbunix.mitre.org (Thomson) writes: > >|Could someone explain what it is about X-windows that makes it "brain damaged" >|or "fatally flawed"? > >That would be like trying to explain why IBM isn't a visionary company. >It's just something you have to experience for a while. It all depends on what you are looking for. X windows was designed to provide _only_ a low level functionality on which other capabilities could be built, one that would be clean, perform adequately across a network, and be highly portable. It was meant to be "Layers", not "Intuition". Applications programmers writing directly to X windows instead of to a higher level standard interface (toolkit, GUI) built on top of it are just people heavily into pain. Listening to them complain about what X doesn't offer is a waste of time, like listening to a hypochondraic describe his health problems; what they're doing with X is not what X was designed to do in the first place. They're doing the equivalent of programming a MIPS in hex; possible, but why bother once a higher level language existed? Kent, the man from xanth.