Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jarober
From: jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 740-9172)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: XView Toolkit
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.212000.15348@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 21:20:00 GMT
References: <9106180734.AA04888@delphi.uucp> <1991Jun18.161315@wsl.dec.com> <1991Jun19.052126.9204@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <537@bksmel.oz.au> <1991Jun24.090219.28243@resam.dk>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Lines: 16

andrew@resam.dk (Leif Andrew Rump) writes:

>In <537@bksmel.oz.au> cwy@bksmel.oz.au (Chris Young) writes:
>>Also, I STRONGLY disagree that Xview is easier to use than Motif ...
>>you obviously have done more Xview - I find it the other way around as
>>I have done more Motif. You should be more careful making sweeping
>>statements on the net unless you are asking to be flamed !

>What about some cool facts? How does a simple Motif program look like?

Having written Xview, OLIT, Xaw, and Motif code, I think that Xview is far
easier to learn than any of the others. To say otherwise is plain silly. You
can argue features, flexibility and portability, but the Xview learning curve
is a lot less steep. 

jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu