Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfcmr!chan
From: chan@hpfcmr.HP.COM (Chan Benson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Automatic module initialization (was Xtk Resource Converters)
Message-ID: <1210005@hpfcmr.HP.COM>
Date: 27 May 88 17:20:28 GMT
References: <10049@sol.ARPA>
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 24

> [If else anyone wants to debate the merits of C as a modern programming
> language, I suggest that they, and I, do it somewhere other than
> "xpert/comp.windows.x".]

I've been trying to restrain myself....

I don't really want to debate the merits of C. I don't really care
whether you think C is modern or not. I want to know why (given that
C was the language chosen) Xtk was not designed with the limitations
of C in mind.

Did it not occur to you that if you had to build another language
on top of C to do what you wanted, that you were doing the wrong thing?

This continual whining from the Xtk developers about the language
they were "forced" to use does not help the advancement of Xtk. Can
you imagine Sun employees posting bits like "Well, if Bill Joy had
let us use a real language rather than this primitive PostScript
stuff, we could have really made wonderful NeWS."

			-- Chan Benson
			HP Fort Collins

Does this mean there won't be any Xtk Fortran bindings?