Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!ncar!ico!attc!marbru
From: marbru@attc.UUCP (Martin Brunecky)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Wcl vs. UIL
Message-ID: <1237@attc.UUCP>
Date: 13 Mar 91 16:01:41 GMT
References: <1039@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>
Reply-To: marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Auto-trol Technology, Denver
Lines: 29

In article <1039@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> diaz@venice.sedd.trw.com (Phillip Diaz) writes:
>What would you consider as major selling points for using Wcl
>over UIL ?  Other than public domain software (broader range
>of testing), smaller source code (?), access to Wcl source,
>less internal declaratives for defining window displays,
>and no cost.
>Can you think of any others ?

 Without any particular order:

    - much, much, much smaller source code (-)
    - no need for a compiler (compiler maintenace on different platform)
    - no need for a compiler (no compiler needed at customer site)
    - no need for a compiler (no compilation step during development)
    - UI definition direct portability (no huge, binary .uid files)
    - ability to "wildcard" specifications: *background: brown
    - ability to specify resources for resource class, widget class
    - changing the UI definition in field by a simple patch to an ASCII file
    - natural extensibility (no extra affort to accomodate a new widget)
    - passing callback (client) data as strings (encourages pseudo-standard)
    - natural extension of the X resource database: NO NEW LANGUAGE
    - ease of learning the concept
    .... and probably several more important ones, I just can't recall ...
 
-- 
=*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*=
Martin Brunecky                           {...}sunpeaks!auto-trol!marbru
(303) 252-2499                        (sometimes also:  marbru@auto-trol.COM )
Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404