🚀 go-pugleaf

 
In article <930@borg.cs.unc.edu>, lusk@hilbert.cs.unc.edu (John Lusk) writes:
>I hesitate to ask this.  Given a choice between developing for a
>Macintosh and developing for X windows, why would anybody choose X?

Because they don't want to be tied to single vendor.  Or perhaps they
realize that X-based systems are the present/future of desktop
computing.

>I know nothing about the Mac toolbox, but I've been reading the
>O'Reilly manuals on Xlib, Xt and Xview.  Seems like the Mac toolbox
>couldn't possibly be as complicated as X.

You might reserve judgement until you've looked at the Mac.

--
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	  It will be a great day when our schools have
Martin Marietta Energy Systems    all the money they need and the Air Force
Workstation Support               has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.

As quoted from <1991Jan28.173654.10133@cs.utk.edu> by de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill):
+---------------
| In article <930@borg.cs.unc.edu>, lusk@hilbert.cs.unc.edu (John Lusk) writes:
| >I hesitate to ask this.  Given a choice between developing for a
| >Macintosh and developing for X windows, why would anybody choose X?
| 
| Because they don't want to be tied to single vendor.  Or perhaps they
| realize that X-based systems are the present/future of desktop
| computing.
+---------------

There is at least one Mac-emulator for X and other window systems, not to
mention critters like the Amax for the Amiga.  In general, however, you are
correct:  X is more portable.  BUT:  you didn't really answer the question
that was asked, which involved why a more complex system would be chosen over
a less-complex one.

Here's a stab at a more relevant answer.

The Mac has a user interface.  X is *not* a user interface, however; it is a
toolkit for *building* user interfaces.  (Consider Open Look vs. Motif, both
of which are built on X.)  The Mac provides *some* low-level mechanisms for
building your own alternative user interface, but not a full set; anything you
build will be decidedly MacOS-like because the most primitive operations
available on the Mac are the low-level MacOS interface ones.

Thus, it takes more work to write for *raw* X than for MacOS, because you need
to build the user interface.  It takes somewhat less work to build for
specific GUIs built on X; both Motif and Open Look provide toolkits, similar
to the MacOS Toolbox.  But then you're tied to that GUI; something built for
raw X should run on *any* X, including the ones underlying Motif and Open
Look.

++Brandon
-- 
Me: Brandon S. Allbery			    VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440
Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG		    Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN
America OnLine: KB8JRR			    AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery    Delphi: ALLBERY

>>I hesitate to ask this.  Given a choice between developing for a
>>Macintosh and developing for X windows, why would anybody choose X?
>
>Because they don't want to be tied to single vendor.  Or perhaps they
>realize that X-based systems are the present/future of desktop
>computing.
>
>>I know nothing about the Mac toolbox, but I've been reading the
>>O'Reilly manuals on Xlib, Xt and Xview.  Seems like the Mac toolbox
>>couldn't possibly be as complicated as X.
>
>You might reserve judgement until you've looked at the Mac.

I find both the Mac toolbox and X toolbox rather complicated. I've
programmed in the X toolbox and I know people who program for the
Macintosh. I find it really strange that you need so much code
simply to open a window. The X toolbox is better, but still I prefer
the Amiga way of doing things (I mean in AmigaDOS 2.0 the new version
of the operating system). There is now a toolbox that is very easy to
use. A C program to open a window with a button could be written in
only about 12 lines, with on each line only one statement or declaration.
And you don't need external files like in X.
And this program would automatically account for window sizing, closing
of the window, refreshing of the window and it would include a small
event loop for the button.

This is of course my personal opinion.

            Jorrit Tyberghein