Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mandrill!hal!oxtrap!rich
From: rich@oxtrap.UUCP (K. Richard Magill)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Object-oriented programming and the X toolkit
Summary: 4gl for Xtk?
Keywords: Xtk C 4gl
Message-ID: <2654@oxtrap.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jan 88 05:41:38 GMT
References: <8801230105.AA28529@gilroy.dec.com>
Reply-To: rich@oxtrap.UUCP (K. Richard Magill)
Organization: Oxford, Ann Arbor
Lines: 33

In article <8801230105.AA28529@gilroy.dec.com> joel@DECWRL.DEC.COM writes:
>I would rather have written the toolkit in Modula-2 if given the choice, even
>though the lack of initializers would have made writing class records a gross
>annoyance.  Better, I would rather have first designed a strongly-typed
>object-oriented programming language, then written the toolkit in that.  I
>would rather have used C++ than C.

FLAMISH PART: (constructive part next paragraph)

I won't argue your philosophy because I can understand it.  On the
other hand I'm not usually willing to pay the overhead of a more
stongly typed language.  When I am, I'd rather use a special purpose
language, (eg, sh, sql, or even uwmrc :-).  Which brings me to...

CONSTRUCTIVE PART:

I don't like Xtk.  I don't fault the decisions made in its design.  A
few years ago I wrote a forms/screen/curses-replacement package that
looked like a little brother to Xtk.  My only regret was that I wasn't
given the chance to write a yacc-ish interface for it.

My first (constructive) thought when reading the Xtk doc was that a
typical application progammer can't deal with Xtk.  He should never
see it.  If Xtk were hidden under a 4gl/yacc-ish preprocessor, (output
in C), it could really be the tool it was intended to be.

RAMBLE ON PART:

I don't have the time to write it, (I'd rather spend my evenings
porting X to my 3b1), but I would like to see it happen, and am
willing to help work on a specification and/or design.

xoxorich.