Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!milo.mcs.anl.gov!atlantis.ees.anl.gov!korp
From: korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov (Peter Korp)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A tirade about inefficient software & systems
Message-ID: <1990Nov8.214204.25638@mcs.anl.gov>
Date: 8 Nov 90 21:42:04 GMT
References: <9011061536.AA15577@islanders.> <10294@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Sender: news@mcs.anl.gov
Organization: Advanced Computer Application Center, Argonne National Laboratory
Lines: 68
Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.ees.anl.gov

In article <10294@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth) writes:
[ some talk about X extensions and OpenWindows ]
>
>Only guaranteed if you are running OpenWindows [sic] and guaranteed NOT
>to be available if you are running any other X server.
>

This is true, but I think the point was that the lowest common denominator
in OpenWindows includes many extensions in X. This allows application
programmers to worry more about writing their app rather than how to
work around missing extensions. OpenWindows(TM) is the correct name
of the product.

>This is obviously a bad position to find oneself IF you are:
>	1.	Writing code which is intended to be portable, OR
>	2.	Writing code which will be around for a long time.
>
>If you are only writing code for Sun machines, AND if your code is
>throw away junk, then by all means, count on OpenWindows [sic]
>capabilities.
>

I guess I have been writing throw away junk for the boys over in Desert
Shield then. Honestly, the recent developments in the OpenWindows arena
will provide an impetus to port OpenWindows to other platforms. Lots of
the software that I have written is hardly viewed by the sponors as throw
away junk, rather as a more time/cost effective solution to generating
custom applications. Don't get me wrong, they use X stuff too, just that
they feel they would rather have the best of both worlds.

>Using OpenWindows [sic] specific capabilities is as questionable as
>using DEC FORTRAN specific capabilities 10 years ago: they are GREAT
>capabilities, but forget about porting.  And the only reason for
>FORTRAN then was portability, and the best reason for X today is
>platform independence!
>

On the contrary, I ran most of my code on the Macintosh NeWS port first time.
Portability of code is great, it just has to have NeWS.

>Not that writing code for Suns only is a *bad* thing - it _is_ the
>biggest single market TODAY.  Just like the VAX was the obvious
>platform 10 years ago.  Sun makes really nice machines, and their
>software isn't too bad either.  However, it you work for the government
>where we are directed by the OMB to avoid vendor-specific soulutions,
>then writing Sun specific code might be the last code you write...
>

Apparently our sponsors have a different view of the future than yours.

>(written on a Sun via rn on a VAX, using X11R4 on everything)
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Smyth				david@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
>Senior Software Engineer,		seismo!cit-vax!jpl-devvax!david
>X and Object Guru.			(818)393-0983
>Jet Propulsion Lab, M/S 230-103, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109
>------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>    If British police don't give speeding tickets, what DO they do?!?!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These opinions are all my own, though life would be simpler if they were
yours too!