Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: doug@genmri.UUCP (Doug Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Macintosh vs. X windows
Message-ID: <9101281849.AA09639@genmri.sane.COM>
Date: 28 Jan 91 18:49:54 GMT
References: <930@borg.cs.unc.edu>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 43


    I hesitate to ask this.  Given a choice between developing for a
    Macintosh and developing for X windows, why would anybody choose X?

Without having near enough time to answer you, here are some basic
observations:

    1.  A well-written X program will run (or at least display) on many
        different vendors' hardware, *including the Mac*.

    2.  I would dispute your claim that X Toolkits are any more involved
        than the Mac's.  As counterevidence to your "O'Reilly" claim, I
        submit Volumes I-V of Inside Macintosh, and countless hundreds of
        obscure Technical Notes.  (I would also point to the unrivaled
        clarity of the X documentation and the availability of the X source
        code in its entirety.  Note also that the essential documentation
        for much of X is free, the notable exception being the Asente &
        Swick Toolkit book.  [Incidentally, will the *roff source for Asente
        & Swick be included free in R5, the way Scheifler & Gettys et al.
        is now?])

    3.  As I see it, a long-term, successful venture into the Mac world
        depends largely on your being classified by Apple as an "Apple
        Certified Developer" (i.e., a "member of the club").  I find this
        sort of "tell us how many more machines you're going to sell for
        us" policy stifling and obnoxious.

    4.  Assuming 1., 2., and 3. above are false, I find it difficult to
        relate to the theory that "if it's simpler to develop for it,
        that's the one that should be built."

X is complicated, sure, but so is anything that gives you any kind of real
programming power (the Mac Toolbox included).  Believe me, you'll spend as
much time learning about the intricacies of different vendors' approaches
to the wasted 8 bits of 32-bit QuickDraw as you will learning how to match
a visual for a given screen.  Without knowing anything about your
application, I'd recommend that you give VERY serious consideration to X.

-- 

Doug Becker
doug@nmri.ge.com
crdgw1.ge.com!sane!doug