casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (11/05/90)
| From: asente@adobe.com | Newsgroups: comp.sources.x | Subject: v10i041: Examples from New Xt Book, Part01/05 | Message-ID: <csx-10i041:xt-examples@uunet.UU.NET> | Date: 1 Nov 90 05:52:17 GMT | Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM | Lines: 2211 | Approved: argv@sun.com | | Submitted-by: asente@adobe.com | Posting-number: Volume 10, Issue 41 | Archive-name: xt-examples/part01 | | [ Moderator's note -- | The following 5 shar's contain the source to the example programs used | in Paul Asente's new book on programming Xt, the toolkit intrinsics. | All flames for lack of Imakefile's should be directed to Paul :-) | No, this does *not* mean that you don't have to include Imakefiles | in your next submission! --dan | ] What an unbelievable faux pas. Would *you* buy a book on programming in X from someone who doesn't know how to use imake? Or nearly as bad, someone without the courage to help in the standards process by helping promulgate imake as a standard part of any X11 installation? I sure won't be buying his book ... Casey
jim@ncd.COM (Jim Fulton) (11/05/90)
What an unbelievable faux pas. Would *you* buy a book on programming
in X from someone who doesn't know how to use imake?
Yes.
Or nearly as bad,
someone without the courage to help in the standards process by helping
promulgate imake as a standard part of any X11 installation? I sure
won't be buying his book ...
That would most emphatically be your loss. It's a great book, written by two
of the most devoted people who have been involved with X.rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (11/05/90)
I sure won't be buying his book ... Then you are being incredibly silly. Paul's part of the new Digital Press toolkit book is a godsend, a self-respecting Xt programmer would not pass it by.
mikey@eukanuba.wpd.sgi.com (Mike Yang) (11/06/90)
In article <85455@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: |> What an unbelievable faux pas. Would *you* buy a book on programming |> in X from someone who doesn't know how to use imake? Or nearly as bad, |> someone without the courage to help in the standards process by helping |> promulgate imake as a standard part of any X11 installation? I sure |> won't be buying his book ... As someone who doesn't use imake locally and who is more interested in Xt-type information from an Xt book, I would certainly by a book written by Paul Asente, one of the Xt designers, even if he didn't distribute imake with their example sources to a public newsgroup. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Yang Silicon Graphics, Inc. mikey@sgi.com 415/335-1786
casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (11/06/90)
Why oh why do I send stuff out late at night when I'm tired and stupid? This is a public apology to Paul Asente and all of you who suffered through my stupid note of last night. I've got to learn not to let minor irritation escalate to public humiliation. Paul, others: I'm sorry. Casey
mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (11/06/90)
>> [ Moderator's note -- >> The following 5 shar's contain the source to the example programs used >> in Paul Asente's new book on programming Xt, the toolkit intrinsics. >> All flames for lack of Imakefile's should be directed to Paul :-) >> No, this does *not* mean that you don't have to include Imakefiles >> in your next submission! --dan >> ] > What an unbelievable faux pas. Would *you* buy a book on programming > in X from someone who doesn't know how to use imake? Certainly. Or rather, it would not affect my decision. A little imake knowledge is almost essential for *installing* X, but most certainly not for just writing programs with it. > Or nearly as bad, someone without the courage to help in the > standards process by helping promulgate imake as a standard part of > any X11 installation? (Who died and made *you* god?!) Just because something is a standard does not make it good (or what are we doing using anything but IBM 360s?). imake is, in my opinion, a useful part of the X distribution build process, and verges on useless for anything else. I certainly use it for nothing else. It isn't even particularly well thought-out; in particular, it uses cpp for something it was never meant for, and therefore breaks on systems where it shouldn't. (Like machines that don't even have a separate C preprocessor, or where the only available cpp is ANSI (ANSI cpps don't work with imake).) IMO it takes more courage to buck the tide than to conform. Not using imake does not indicate a lack of courage, or a lack of desire to help with standardization. And on top of all that, you have not said one word to support the position that imake is what we should standardize on. As far as I can see, the only thing it has going for it is a complete lack of competition. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
jf@ap.co.umist.ac.uk (John Forrest) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.184251.19688@relay.wpd.sgi.com>, mikey@eukanuba.wpd.sgi.com (Mike Yang) writes: |> |> As someone who doesn't use imake locally and who is more interested in |> Xt-type information from an Xt book, I would certainly by a book |> written by Paul Asente, one of the Xt designers, even if he didn't |> distribute imake with their example sources to a public newsgroup. As someone who is forced to use Imake, because of ``funnies'' in our enviroment, I'd just like to ask that if anyone gets round to producing an Imakefile for this stuff, could they post it up? John Forrest Dept of Computation UMIST.
mh@roger.imsd.contel.com (Mike Hoegeman) (11/08/90)
In article <9011060405.AA18914@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU writes: >> What an unbelievable faux pas. Would *you* buy a book on programming >> in X from someone who doesn't know how to use imake? > >Certainly. Or rather, it would not affect my decision. A little imake >knowledge is almost essential for *installing* X, but most certainly >not for just writing programs with it. > >> Or nearly as bad, someone without the courage to help in the >> standards process by helping promulgate imake as a standard part of >> any X11 installation? > >(Who died and made *you* god?!) >Just because something is a standard does not make it good (or what are >we doing using anything but IBM 360s?). imake is, in my opinion, a >useful part of the X distribution build process, and verges on useless >for anything else. I certainly use it for nothing else. It isn't even >particularly well thought-out; in particular, it uses cpp for something >it was never meant for, and therefore breaks on systems where it >shouldn't. (Like machines that don't even have a separate C >preprocessor, or where the only available cpp is ANSI (ANSI cpps don't >work with imake).) I totally agree with this rebuttal. imake is adequate for the X distribution process but barely. The whole scheme is stilted in the extreme and pretty hard to read. The goal imake is trying to acheive is admirable but the execution leaves *much* to be desired. Anything that refrains (intentional or otherwise) from promoting i make is *good* in my opinion. Besides all that though, the flame was really uncalled for no matter how late at night it was posted. -mike hoegeman, mh@roger.imsd.contel.com