mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) (04/14/91)
In article <128236@uunet.UU.NET>, rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes: [...X...] >> was painfully slow, quite a pain to program, and binaries linked to > That's part of it. But the real problem is that it's too difficult to > program. You can't possibly remember all those include files, > arguments, and function calls. You'll need a whole shelf of manuals > to write the simplest code. Speak for yourself. I need only one manual, and I keep it in a file (it's only about .75 MB). And I don't refer to it all that often anyway. > Device independence? Hogwash! Unlike NeWS, the interpreter is in > the wrong place. Partially agreed. For many applications the ability to download code into the server would be a major win; the real problem is that the resulting system is much heavier weight. (If you don't agree, where are all the NeWS-terminals? X-terminals are selling left and right.) > Yeah the server swaps bytes, but the client must use the server's > pixel sizes, colormaps, etc. This is orthogonal to your previous sentence. X made the right choice when they specified all coordinates in terms of pixels: until pixels are too small to see, you don't want a pixel-independent protocol language. (Which is one reason I don't like PostScript-only printers.) As for colormaps, what's your point? The client has control over the contents of the colormap; what more do you want? (Unless the hardware doesn't have dynamic colormaps, in which case you obviously can't get it, or the server is exceptionally brain-damaged, and deliberately stupid software can be cited on both sides of any argument like this.) This is moving away from UNIX into X, so I'm moving it from comp.unix.wizards to comp.windows.x. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr14.084432.11937@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) writes: In article <128236@uunet.UU.NET>, rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes: [...X...] >>> was painfully slow, quite a pain to program, and binaries linked to >> That's part of it. But the real problem is that it's too difficult to >> program. You can't possibly remember all those include files, >> arguments, and function calls. You'll need a whole shelf of manuals >> to write the simplest code. > >Speak for yourself. I need only one manual, and I keep it in a file >(it's only about .75 MB). And I don't refer to it all that often >anyway. > Sorry about being late on this one. Better late than never. But I agree with the Mouse, I have 3 books here for reference and thats it. I use to have the complete set of the O'Reilly Books and others, but found them to be usless. The X Window APP Prog books and 1 in Japanese which is better than them and thats it. And I prog. in X every day. Will......