Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!zodiac!jtn
From: jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NextStep and NeWS...
Keywords: NextStep,NeWS,Postscript
Message-ID: <7605@zodiac.UUCP>
Date: 18 Apr 89 21:30:52 GMT
References: <1041@nixctc.DE> <8530@polya.Stanford.EDU> <3901@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@zodiac.UUCP
Reply-To: jtn@ads.com (John Nelson)
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 960-7300
Lines: 22

In article <3901@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <8530@polya.Stanford.EDU>, ali@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ali T. Ozer) writes:
>> One of the goals of NextStep is to make sure the programmer does not have
>> to write any more PostScript than is necessary to do the his/her custom
>> drawing. All user interface objects exist in Objective C...
>
>Is this really so desirable? I thought NeWS' model was a very nice division
>of labor. You get a much greater degree of user programmability as well. Why
>is it more desirable to hardcode interface decisions into the application?

This is a very important question I think.  Can anyone at NeXT (or
someplace) please explain why NeXTStep is a better division of labour
than NeWS?  NeWS has some attractive features.  The only problem is
that it isn't a real shell of any kind ... i.e. Sun is still stuck in
this "run a thing on top of the cshell" model.





Sine Visa Ars Nihil Est
- John T. Nelson