🚀 go-pugleaf

bb@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes:

>by handicapping them with X.  NextStep is so much nicer (read: better
>designed, factor of 100 more productive to program), that you will
>produce interfaces in a week that would take you several months (I'm
>amortizing training times in here also) to reproduce in X.  But, don't

>Challenge: I bet that you cannot give me reasons to use X (by private
>email, please), that I cannot demonstrate to be flawed or outright
>incorrect.  You have already stated that you are going to use an

I agree with you completely: NeXTStep is an order of magnitude faster
than (at least) UIMX. But you should compare apples to apples; NeXTStep
is an interface management system/interface design tool, whereas X is
a collection of functions that facilitate a windowed system, much like
Apple's Macintosh ToolKit, Suns's Sunview and NeWS, and MS Windows.

If you are designing applications to run on a single system, NeXTStep
is the way to go. However, if you are designing applications to run on
a network (where the application runs on one of a number of remote machines,
while the graphical display is handled on one of any number of display
machines), then X is the kit to use.


NPN