Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru From: marbru@auto-trol.com (Martin Brunecky) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.motif Subject: Re: UIL vs. C code Keywords: UIL motif C Message-ID: <1991Jun10.192837.7111@auto-trol.com> Date: 10 Jun 91 19:28:37 GMT References: <1991May31.165653.23064@auto-trol.com> <54461@inkwell.UUCP> Sender: news@auto-trol.com Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation Lines: 31 Nntp-Posting-Host: server_1-gw In article <54461@inkwell.UUCP> jhc@ivan.UUCP (James H. Coombs) writes: >In article connolly@convex.com (Dan Connolly) writes: >>In <1991May31.165653.23064@auto-trol.com> marbru@auto-trol.com (Martin Brunecky) writes: >> >>>> 7) anything else that's important >>> Look at Wcl (look at FAQ list for more). >>> Using UIL is BAD, the only thing even worse is doing it in "C".... >> >>I'd like to second this piece of advice. These interface languages are >>all about increasing productivity, no? Wcl does. UIL doesn't. That's all >>I've got to say. > >In my experience, UIL does increase productivity. In fact, we have an >.....(rest of WHY UIL is better than C deleted) > >These are all big wins. I have looked at Wcl. Last I checked, it was >not vendor supported. No, it is not vendor supported. But, forgive me, that is a very poor argument, considering the size of the Wcl code and the fact it does not do anything "unsupported". I'd be surprized if (even using UIL) your application had less than 5times more (and more involved) Xt code than the entire Wcl. -- Martin -- =*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*= Martin Brunecky marbru%auto-trol@sunpeaks.central.sun.com (303) 252-2499 (better avoid: marbru@auto-trol.COM ) Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404