lerner@isi-vaxa.arpa (Mitchell Lerner) (12/10/85)
Dear Bob: I seem to be drawn to the speculation that some sort of standard for the interface between applications code and the O.S specific window support would make these programs alot more portable. It would be wonderful!!! I've recently started learning about programming the Mac (I have been programming Suns). I was kinda shocked to learn about the Mac's software interface. It is incredebly machine dependent and very cumbersome. It would be quite a large job to build a layer on top of the Window Manager and Quick Draw that would be as high level as Sun's Sunwindows. I'm not very sure that if one was built, that once it was linked, that all of the code would fit into the aprox. 500k (<-- generous) of primary store. Of course there is alot of stuff one has to do in the Mac environment that one doesnt need to worry about in the Sun environment but I think that alot of that could be hidden in the apriori support software. In comparison, the Mac's window support looks like a "quick and dirty" compared to the Sun's. And they are paying for this "quicky" because it is so "dirty" to use that It take a while to get somthing done under it; let alone to "get up to speed" on it. If a standard were to be developed then I think: like standards for the C library routines, the standard for window support will be very heavily influenced by the first widley accepted and used model. The C library interface of Berkley's is widley accepted and I think that Sun's Sunwindows will become the defacto standard. It is very clear and well designed. Is this what you mean by "people should make programming easyer" Bob? I dont mean to lambaste the Mac. It is a very neat machine and I know that It is really not fair to compair it to a Sun, but I think that It could be a lot more than it is, and in order for that to happen, support (like that on the Sun) needs to be developed for it. Portability of applications would only increase the Market of their machine.
markl@vecpyr.UUCP (Mark Patrick) (12/10/85)
An article was recently posted Net.lang.c comparing Sun Tools and the Mac user interface toolbox. Its main points can be summarized as follows: The Mac's software interface is incredibly machine dependent and very cumbersome. The Mac's window system is "quick" and "dirty" compared to the Sun's. Sun Tools provides a much higher level of interface than does the Mac. While recognizing many weak points in the design of the Mac (very limited memory, disk space and compute power compared to a Sun/Apollo/Lisp Machine). I consider its user interface to be a strong point compared to these machines. Having looked at both these products and typical user interfaces constructed from them I have the reverse opinion. The user interface components on Mac: the dialog manager, the menu manager, the control manager, the resource editor and MacApp seem far more capable of supporting a high quality user interface than does SunTools (moreover the documentation for Mac seems much clearer than that for the Sun). Since I last looked at the Sun documentation they have added a CGI and are working on a new user interface and better documentation. However, I am told by those who have to program to this interface that this is still dificult. I would be very interested in hearing what features on the Sun (or other workstation) appeal to end users/programmers which they believe simpflify application development yet yield high quality user interfaces and ideas for easing the porting of applications between bit-mapped systems while not sacrificing quality of user interface/functionality.
marc@haddock.UUCP (12/16/85)
Take a good look at the Apollo DIALOG package. I believe that you will find it to be a very useful user interface creation tool package. P.S. If you find it a little short on flexibility, wiat for the next version... it's amazing how far they have come! -- Marc, WB1GRH Interactive Systems Corp Boston, MA