Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!spool.mu.edu!uunet!wuarchive!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!unify!openlook!openlook-request From: openlook-request@openlook Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look Subject: Re: Open Look Toolkits Message-ID: Date: 24 Apr 91 14:03:04 GMT Lines: 38 > I would like to elicit feedback form the OpenLook Newsgroup concerning > the toolkit choices for OpenLook compliant applications. The popular > choices appear to be Sun's Xview and AT&T's OLIT and Xt+ toolkits. > I have the impression that Xview is more widely used, and perhaps better > supported. Don't forget TNT. Easily the most powerful OL toolkit. > Is this simply a reflection of Sun's substantial market share, or is it > the superior OpenLook toolkit? Lest we forget, XView can run on platforms other than Sun. As a consultant and instructor, I've found that my clients and students learn XView much faster than intrinsics-based toolkits. Since most of my clients have application programmers and not real systems types, the learning curve and ease-of-programming of XView is extremely attractive to them. As an exercise, teach an OLIT course to a group of application programmers and then teach an XView course... you'll understand. The clients that prefer OLIT over Xview prefer its flexibility and compliance with the intrinsics layer (its often perceived by managers who read things like PC Weak and InfoRag that the intrinsics layer is "standard" and everything else is not). Some others like OLIT becase subclassing in XView is awkward (its not hard, just awkward) and subclassing in OLIT is a bit better (neither is *real* good at it though). Sun's market share does have some bearing on these decisions just like Microsoft's market share has on PC programmers/managers, but not as overwhelming. FYI, there are other OL toolkits, but beware of ones that are not ICCCM compliant. Frank G. Consultant (my own opinions, of course)