jan@golf.canberra.edu.au (Jan Newmarch) (01/21/91)
Just after a bit of history: who decided to call Xt objects `widgets'?
And why? What exactly does the word mean? (My dictionary hasn't even
caught up with Xlib yet :-().
+----------------------+---+
Jan Newmarch, Information Science and Engineering,
University of Canberra, PO Box 1, Belconnen, Act 2616
Australia. Tel: (Aust) 6-2522422. Fax: (Aust) 6-2522999
AARnet: jan@ise.canberra.edu.au
ARPA: jan%ise.canberra.edu.au@uunet.uu.net
UUCP: {uunet,ukc}!munnari!ise.canberra.edu.au!jan
JANET: jan%au.edu.canberra.ise@EAN-RELAY
+--------------------------+asente@adobe.com (Paul Asente) (01/22/91)
In article <jan.664416457@golf> jan@golf.canberra.edu.au (Jan Newmarch) writes: >Just after a bit of history: who decided to call Xt objects `widgets'? >And why? What exactly does the word mean? (My dictionary hasn't even >caught up with Xlib yet :-(). From the introduction to "X Window System Toolkit" by Ralph Swick and myself: In the very first joint meeting of the DEC, HP, and MIT teams, the question of naming the components that implement look and feel was addressed. All agreed that the term @i[tool] used by Digital was too generic, as was the term @i[object]. The term used by Hewlett-Packard, @i[field editor], was thought to be too specific and a little unwieldy. Finally, the members adopted the nonpartisan term @i[widget], and X usurped yet another generic word for a specific usage.@footnote(Precisely who coined the term is a somewhat contentious point that will probably remain shrouded in obscurity.) As to what the word means, it's American jargon for an unspecified small thing. Microeconomics texts are full of references to widget-making factories. -paul asente asente@adobe.com ...decwrl!adobe!asente