Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!att!cbnewsj!cbnewsi!reha
From: reha@cbnewsi.att.com (reha.gur)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: re: interviews vs ET++
Message-ID: <1991Feb15.162358.4625@cbnewsi.att.com>
Date: 15 Feb 91 16:23:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 32


Actually, there is a third system, Andrew that should be mentioned in
any discussion of OO Ui's. (Yes I know it's not done in C++; their
mistake!)

I have used Interviews, ET++ and looked at Andrew and MacApp.

My opinion is that of these environments ET++ is by far the best
environment for developing user applications (with certain qulifications
stated below.)

The user interface abstractions provided by Interviews differ
substantially from those offers by ET++, MacApp, Andrew, and Smalltalk.
I feel that the ET++, MacApp, Andrew, Smalltalk abstractions, even though
they have differences among their own abstractions produce a much
richer and frankly better set of objects for use interface design.

On the other hand there are problems with ET++ 2.0.  ET++ requires
threads. It also does not support a MOTIF, or OL look and feel. It 
looks a lot like a MAC interface. Changing the ET++ look and feel is not
a difficult task and I know of someone who has done it, but it is not
trivial.

There are also good things about Interviews. I use their idraw program
and it is great.

So my recommendation is to get the manuals for both of these systems
and see which one looks and feels right to you.


reha gur
attunix!honshu!reha