Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:33815 comp.windows.x.motif:2138 comp.windows.open-look:812 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.windows.open-look Subject: Re: Toolkit for Open Look *and* OSF/Motif Look and Feel Message-ID: <1991Mar8.005159.7244@alphalpha.com> Date: 8 Mar 91 00:51:59 GMT References: <1057@attc.UUCP> <1991Feb19.210822.26826@visix.com> <1991Feb20.170617.15372@cs.umn.edu> <1991Feb20.194928.3022@Solbourne.COM> <1991Feb21.184826.11191@alphalpha.com> Distribution: comp Organization: asi Lines: 59 In article preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece) writes: >In article <1991Feb21.184826.11191@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: >| Okay. Presumbably you didn't put any buttons in the menubar, since >| you aren't supposed to do that in Motif....[more examples] >--- >I did think it was amusing, in an ironic kind of way, that after years >of hearing (mostly OSF) people say at the P1201 meetings that the >differences between Motif and OPEN LOOK were much too significant to >allow an easy merger, there was a paper at Uniforum by A DEC guy that >concluded "The good correspondence between the OPEN LOOK and OSF/Motif >styles and toolkits indicate the general feasibility of applications >supporting both GUI's." I have never said that an application can not support both GUIs. What I have said, and continue to say, is that it is not possible to fully support both GUIs using a _generic_ toolkit. There is a *big* difference between writing a GUI independant layer that is appropriate for *one* application, and writing one that is appropriate for *all* applications. I've pointed out the differences that must be dealt with, I've yet to hear anyone offer a toolkit which solves all of the problems. The best I've heard is that the differences are due to deficiencies in an implementation or Style Guide. Which may or may not be true, but in any case doesn't solve the real-world problem. Write a GUI-independant layer that solves the problem for a certain class of applications? Sure, as long as you plan ahead carefully and can deal with certain restrictions. Write one that solves it for all applications? Forget it. >| This stuff about being able to do two GUIs is nonsense. Not because >| it isn't possible. Not because it isn't easy. But simply because >| WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO IT! It's a waste of time, resources and it >| hurts the industry. >--- >I guess I would take the unpopular side and say that both OL and Motif >have profited significantly from the other's competition and that I see >no reason to believe that either would have improved as fast as both >have if either had been ceded the field a year ago. I'm not sure I agree. And in any case, that doesn't take into account the wasted effort of people trying to write to two toolkits - or worse yet, not writing to either. >It's still really depressing that neither GUI has been able to >significantly advance the state of the GUI art. It is a sad comment No argument there! I'm planning on upping the technical stakes in a few weeks when I have a little more time. I've done some object-by-object comparisons of OL and Motif that I'll be posting. Stay tuned. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.