Xref: utzoo comp.windows.news:1756 comp.windows.misc:1283 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.windows.news,comp.windows.misc Subject: Re: Is SUN a "PURE PLAYER" in window systems - SunView or OpenWindows??? Message-ID: <7422@ficc.uu.net> Date: 27 Dec 89 04:17:40 GMT References: <8912162135.AA03025@iris.rand.org> <4290@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <7352@ficc.uu.net> <4301@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <7363@ficc.uu.net> <4318@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 57 > Portability is not easy in the X world. You must worry about > fonts to use [etc etc] Yes, I'm aware that X has some horrible design choices. > One of the best methods is to use Object > Oriented programming. You should be able to extend a scrollbar to > improve on it. Yeh, but that extension should not be in the application. The application programmer should not have to deal with the details of a scrollbar. Changes to the scrollbar should be outside the application binary. Of course this is virtually impossible in X. Which is why making X or X toolkits the basis of a future standard is, well, a horrible idea. X is a dead end. As I've said before, it's the Fortran of windowing systems. > It is true that there are a lot of applications that don't need O-O > techniques to develop powerful programs for them. But others do. Fine. And some applications don't need real-time response, but others do. Does this mean all programs should be written in a language designed for real-time work on a real-time O/S? > If you want a standard to be a subset of a powerful window system, fine. > I don't want such a standard myself. I would rather search for the > perfect user interface. Well then you don't think we need to standardise the UI either. Right? > If you want an application to run on PC's, Mac's, Amiga's and Unix > machines - I agree - this is a difficult problem. You can get X for > Mac's and I think PC's. I wouldn't *want* X for Macs or PCs or Amigas. It's big and it locks you into a programming model that isn't necessarily appropriate. But, yes > In conclusion, I think a standard library would limit creativity, and slow > down evolution towards a decent user interface. Depends on what the library looks like. And it would, properly designed, accelerate evolution towards a decent UI, by moving UI decisions OUT of the application. On the other hand a standard user interface just wastes time making people rewrite working software. And *stops* evolution towards a better one. Pick your poison. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com