🚀 go-pugleaf

n article <9152@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes:
>Oh yea.. forgot to say some good things about XVT while I
>got caught up in the fervor of denigrating it.
>
>It really does seem to be faster to code in than Motif.  Or
>perhaps it's just my relative level of experience when I started
>with XVT than with Motif.  After all, when I started with Motif
>last year I had never written any interactive program (on a 
>graphical interface or not) before.  But when I started with
>XVT last december I had written 30,000+ lines of Motif.
>
   The common mistake people do with Xt based toolkits (including Motif),
   is that the *CODE*.
   Coding may be appropriate as a part of the Xt learning process, so most
   books you can get on the subject DO coding. Coding is necessary evil
   to add dynamics and do a fwe special things.

   However, with Xt based toolkits you should NOT code the UI, only the
   application. The UI LAYOUT(s) should be DEFINED, either using Wcl or
   (Gor forbid-) UIL, never CODED.  Of course, if you have the bucks,
   then using some of the UI layout design tools is handy - again, you
   do not CODE the interface, you define it.

   Our experience shows that avoiding CODING during the learning process
   is also very beneficial: The "treinee" concentrates his attention onto
   manipulating widgets through resources, and learning the palette of
   the available widgets. Rather than starting with XtMakeGeometryRequest
   call which (for whatever reason) some novices find so tempting.

Which takes me to my question. Does XVT include some kind of UI defintion
format, that allows to DEFINE the user interface without CODING ?


-- 
=*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*=
Martin Brunecky                      marbru%auto-trol@sunpeaks.central.sun.com
(303) 252-2499                       (better avoid:  marbru@auto-trol.COM )
Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404