jimf@SABER.COM (07/03/90)
|Does anyone know of "merged OL/Motif" packages beside: |- N3 (AT&T/USO) |- OI (Solbourne + others) |- Interviews V3 (proposed) The following is a summary of messages I received when asking a similar question. jim frost saber software jimf@saber.com -- cut here ----------------------------------------------------------------- From brett@mnisdv.den.mmc.com Thu May 31 10:29:54 1990 Date: Thu, 31 May 90 08:23:29 MDT From: Ballantyne <brett@mnisdv.den.mmc.com> To: jimf Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits Jim, If you've used Solbourne's toolkit or know where to get it, please drop me a line at the address or phone number below. I'd like to know how to get it, how much it costs, how stable it is, and how effective for building commercial applications. Solbourne has sold it to AT&T for marketing, and they plan to bring it out this summer, I beleive. The cost will be $5000 for source, and then they will charge you a fee for every machine you put it on, and like a $14 user fee for every user that uses software developed with it (or something like that -- contact AT&T for details). The other way to get it is to buy a Solbourne computer. I can't remember the name of the AT&T guy I talked to, but you could contact Gary Aitken (garya@Solbourne.COM), one of the develpers of the toolkit for details. If you know of any other toolkit than these that gives either or both OpenLook and Motif look-and-feel, please let me know the same information. There is another toolkit based on Stanford's InterViews toolkit. It is marketed by: Quest Systems Corp. 3333 Bowers Ave. Santa Clara, CA 95054-2912 (408)988-8880 info@quest.com uunet!questsys!info I can't remember how much it costs, but as I recall it is more reasonably priced than the Solbourne toolkit, and they don't charge a fee per user, just a fee per developer. Hope this helps, Brett Ballantyne brett@mnisdv.den.mmc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From apollo@ecf.toronto.edu Thu May 31 10:48:13 1990 From: Vince Pugliese <apollo@ecf.toronto.edu> To: jimf Subject: request for Re: Open Look and Motif Toolkits Date: Thu, 31 May 1990 10:44:03 EDT Xref: ecf comp.windows.x:13159 comp.lang.c++:6505 Path: ecf!me!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!Teknowledge.COM!mbartucc From: mbartucc@Teknowledge.COM (Michael Bartucca) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.lang.c++ Subject: C++ UI Class Libraries Keywords: C++,UI,Libraries Message-ID: <3354@alfred.Teknowledge.COM> Date: 23 Apr 90 23:15:59 GMT Followup-To: poster Organization: CIMFLEX Teknowledge Inc., Palo Alto CA Lines: 151 This is a summary of the C++ UI Class Libraries that are currently available in the market place: _______________________________________________________________________________ The following is a summary of the Solbourne OI C++ Class Library: STYLE Motif style available ~June 15: not released formally until August Open Look style available ~June 15 LANGUAGE AT&T C++ 2.0 WINDOW PLATFORM Runs directly on top of Xlib; X11R3, as opposed to running on top of Xlib and Xt intrinsics. PLATFORMS Sparcstations now in house; Beta sites are porting to Sun3/4's. PC's are not a very high priority. COST BINARY COST $75 Single-user $150 Multi-user SOURCE COST $10,000 per and $5,000 each add'l PERFORMANCE Very good. It's not Xt-based, which can be a problem for some people. In fact, it's the one thing that may make it less popular. Still, it's very fast because it lacks Xt overhead. However, it adds to the size of your executables if linked: Sun 3 ~.8 Mb Sun 4 ~1 Mb FUNCTIONALITY You create your windows using generic objects and at run-time you set a flag to indicate Motif Style or Open Look Style. You can use shared libraries on Suns with the Solbourne OI toolkit, unlike OSF/Motif, which doesn't support shared libraries (and won't in 1.1 either, apparently). CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (from bboard responses) "I did my first X project using OI. It was around 15,000 lines of code, and the OI part was pretty small. I have since switched to Xt, Xaw, and Motif, and it's like a different world. OI does so much for you it's incredible. GCs are handled without you even knowing they're there. Getting and setting attributes on objects is a breeze - just use the member function and you're there. Overall, I'd rather use OI than anything I've used since." ____________________________________________________________________________ The following is a summary of the CommonView C++ UI Class Library: STYLE Current- Presentation Mgr, Windows style OSF/Motif style available ~Aug/Sept LANGUAGE Current- Glockenspiel C++ 1.2 Glockenspiel C++ 2.0 expected ~Aug/Sept WINDOW PLATFORM Current- OS/2 Presentation Mgr and Microsoft Windows In the future it will run on top of OSF/Motif toolkit which runs on top of Xt intrinsics which runs on top of Xlib. PLATFORMS Mainly PC's running DOS, OS/2 Sun 3/4's and Sparcstations running UNIX COST BINARY COST - same cost as the Glockenspiel Compiler PC DOS Platform $350 PC, PM & OS/2 Platform $499 Future Sun/Unix/Motif Platform $499??? SOURCE COST PC DOS Platform $725 PC, PM & OS/2 Platform ???? Future Sun/Unix/Motif Platform ~$2,600?? PERFORMANCE N/A FUNCTIONALITY Can be run on various platforms. Unfortunately, it currently is not running with C++ 2.0 or Motif style. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (from bboard responses) N/A _______________________________________________________________________ The following is a summary of the InterViews 2.6 C++ UI Class Library: STYLE InterViews Style LANGUAGE AT&T C++ 2.0 WINDOW PLATFORM Runs directly on top of Xlib. X11R4 and supposedly X11R3 PLATFORMS Sun 3/4's COST Free PERFORMANCE "It's pretty portable and reasonably fast." FUNCTIONALITY InterViews is in wide use. It has been available for more than 2 years, and is presently the UI class library for over 200 active sites in several countries. Mark Linton has presented InterViews papers at every USENIX C++ conference to date. InterViews is a toolkit implemented on top of Xlib. It does not use the Xt toolkit Intrinsics. Thus, any of the widgets (actually called "interactors" in InterViews jargon) can not be mixed-and-matched with Xt based widget sets such as Athena, Motif etc. InterViews is about 25 or 30K lines of C++ code. About 2k lines of this are Xlib dependant. The rest is independant of Xlib. (I think the idea is that it makes it possible to port InterViews over to other windowing systems with a minimun of difficulty.) Subclassing interactors is as easy as subclassing in C++ i.e. it's simple. It's especially nice in how it handles simple graphics (lines, arcs, etc.) in that they are objects which can be managed like any other object. In other words, it's not just dumb graphics. Generally, when programming in InterViews, you're programming in InterViews as opposed to "Programming in X using the InterViewes tolkit". InterViews tries its best to hide the windowing system from the application programmer---thus it shouldn't be too difficult to port InterViews' programs to other windowing systems that InterViews might be ported to. It *is* possible to access the Xlib representation of some InterViews objects but with the poor documentation I had no idea how to do this. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (from bboard responses) Since it is not based on top of Xt, the wealth of support for Xt toolkits available is of no use to anyone programming in InterViews. There are excellent self study books available to help you learn about Xt and the toolkits based on it. Also, reference manuals are availabale for Xlib and Xt. All that is available for InterViews is some "man" style manual pages. When I was using InterViews (up until last November) these were vastly incomplete and in some places slightly misleading. I think that one of the main problems with InterViews is it's poor documentation. (I haven't checked the latest documentation that came with InterViews on the X11R4 tape so it's possible that the quality has improved.) In particular, the documentation I had was woeful. If the bad It's an excellent package. I looked at Interviews and felt that it wasn't reasonable in the X world. The support for the X resources and Xt-style options was not up to snuff. Also, support involves a university. % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lupine!lemke@uunet.UU.NET Thu May 31 12:47:17 1990 To: uunet!saber.com!jimf@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits Date: Thu, 31 May 90 09:37:29 PDT From: Dave Lemke <lupine!lemke@uunet.UU.NET> From: uunet!saber.com!jimf Date: Wed, 30 May 90 17:37:57 EDT Lastly, if you are a Saber-C user and prefer one or the other interface, please let me know so that we can get some idea of how the market feels. i suppose i could deal with either, though i'd prefer to stick with what you've already got -- i don't need all the fanciness of 3d look or round buttons, and i don't want to pay for it. i also don't want to loose any of your extras that might have to be removed for compliance. (note that i'm still using 2.1.2 -- 3.0 arrived yesterday and hasn't been installed yet. but from reading the docs i'll still be happy with the UI.) the biggest objection would be if you used some feature (the only thing that comes to mind is the OPEN LOOK footers with XView, though there may be others) that requires window manager assitance, cause i'd hate to have to run a different WM as well. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From auspex!auspex.com!guy@uunet.UU.NET Thu May 31 15:40:17 1990 Date: Thu, 31 May 90 12:33:17 PDT From: guy@auspex.com (Guy Harris) To: jimf Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits >If you know of any other toolkit than these that gives either or both >OpenLook and Motif look-and-feel, please let me know the same >information. AT&T's Xt+, which uses the Xt intrinsics and offers, not surprisingly, an Open Look L&F. (You'll have to ask AT&T for more information; I don't know how much it costs, or how you get it, or what platforms it currently works on.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From merlyn@attunix.att.com Sat Jun 2 14:42:53 1990 Date: Sat, 2 Jun 90 14:29 EDT To: attunix!jimf Subject: re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits Jim- > We're in the process of deciding what to do with respect to OpenLook > and/or Motif look-and-feel and are looking into our options with > regard to toolkits, both free and commercial. > > I am aware of the XView and OSF/Motif toolkits, and have heard that > Solbourne has a toolkit which is switch-selectable to be either > OpenLook or Motif compliant. There is also OLIT (OPEN LOOK Intrinsics Toolkit). The ``Intrinsics'' are the X Intrinsics, but we dropped the X to avoid mixups with XView, also known as the OPEN LOOK X Toolkit. As its name implies, OLIT is a widget-based toolkit, like Motif, that gives an OPEN LOOK Look and Feel. This differs from XView in that XView is based directly on Xlib. OLIT is available on Suns directly from Sun, on AT&T 386 PCs and 3B2s directly from AT&T, and on DECs and HPs from third party vendors (QUEST is one). This toolkit is also an integral part of SVR4. In case you're wondering, Sun developed XView to capture the many SunView applications--the XView API is very similar to the SunView API. AT&T also provides XView with SVR4 for the same reason. We developed OLIT because of demand for an X Intrinsics toolkit. In addition to a Solbourne approach (run-time switchable Look and Feel), another approach is XVT (by the company XVT in Boulder CO). Though they don't provide an OPEN LOOK Look and Feel yet, we are discussing this with the company. This toolkit provides a Mac and Windows Look and Feel as well as a Motif Look and Feel; it also provides a character-cell Look and Feel. All of these interfaces have the same API. Though the implementation uses separate libraries, and therefore doesn't directly provide a run-time switch in Look and Feel, use of dynamically shared libraries would provide essentially the same feature. Different approaches are also possible: Some people think that the Solbourne and XVT toolkits introduce a performance degradation over the native toolkit, through an additional layer of software (XVT) or duplicate Look and Feel support (Solbourne). While I am not convinced that this degradation is significant, if necessary there are other ways to distance application development from a particular GUI API. The publically available example is WsXc, which allows the complete specification of the user interface in a regular X Resource file. Though this requires a different resource file for each GUI API, it does promote a methodology that forces separation of the application code from the user interface code. The side effect is that it becomes fairly easy to switch widget sets. The benefit is an application that is closer to the native toolkit, and that therefore (perhaps) performs better. We (Bell Labs) have experimented with a fuller version of this technology (WsXc), allowing a software-tools approach to building applications. In essence we have added to the X Resource Manager: - a mini-programming language, - delayed resource interpretation, - and an IPC channel. These allow dynamic reconfiguration of an application, plus ``networked'' applications. The change sits on top of the standard X software, so is portable to any X client platform. It is not a large leap in technology from regular X. This software is strictly prototype at the present, so doesn't qualify for your software review. I mention it only to show the range of technology available for solving the need to separate application functionality from the user interface. Sincerely, Steve Humphrey AT&T merlyn@attunix.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From salzman%gaucho@rand.org Sat Jun 2 15:20:06 1990 To: jimf Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 30 May 90 17:37:57 -0500. <9005302137.AA13391@lance> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 90 11:48:49 PDT From: Isaac <salzman%gaucho@rand.org> >jimf@saber.com writes: >If you've used Solbourne's toolkit or know where to get it, please >drop me a line at the address or phone number below. I'd like to know >how to get it, how much it costs, how stable it is, and how effective >for building commercial applications. I'm sure you've gotten the answers to how to get it and such by now. All I know is that it's source liscensed from AT&T and won't be ready 'till later this summer. I haven't used it, but from what I've seen, I like it! It's a nice way to NOT have to deal with the look and feel thing, 'cause it does both. And, it's C++ - which is another win (in my opinion). However, there could be problems interfacing Saber-C (which is no doubt written in C) with the OI toolkit which is in C++. You could always re-write Saber in C++! :-) >If you know of any other toolkit than these that gives either or both >OpenLook and Motif look-and-feel, please let me know the same >information. In addition to XView there's OLIT: "Open Look Intrinsics Toolkit" (used to be called Xt+). It's an Xt based Open Look toolkit. It will be part of the OpenWindows 2.0 distribution (which won't do you much good for non-Sun machines). You'd probably call the same people at AT&T for OLIT as for OI. If you decide to go Open Look (and hopefully you will :-), I'd say XView is a better choice than OLIT. I don't think OLIT is as complete an Open Look implementation as XView. Also, XView is free, and as of the 2.0 release (due out within a month or so) it will have the 3D look - which is really nice (well, it doesn't really matter, but that's why people took to Motif in the first place, right?). >If you've worked with either OSF/Motif or XView in a commercial >application, I'd like to know your experiences with either, especially >particular problems or things which worked particularly well. I've been a beta site for OpenWindows 2.0 (and XView), and it's getting to be a real nice system to work with. There's also DevGUIDE - the interface builder for XView, that makes life easy. I'm using it to build an interface to the RAND MH mail system for a research project. So far it's gone quite well. No regrets on using XView at all - and I could've picked anything. DevGUIDE helped a lot, and XView is a nice API to program to, especially if you've come from SunView programming. I haven't done any Motif programming. I have the source lying around. I've tried to build the Motif distribution, and a couple app's that use Motif. What a mess. I think you'll get into a lot of headaches if you go Motif. Saber-C has a pretty complex user interface, Motif will probably complicate it even more, especially since your GUI descends from SunView. All SunView objects transform gracefully into XView. I don't think that'll be the case for Motif. You've got people used to a SunView like interface - going to XView/Open Look will be no problem for people used to using Saber. You'd have to change the way some things work to use Motif. At least that's the feeling I get. I just don't like Motif - so you're getting a biased opinion. What you should really do is this. Forget about what everybody on the net tells you to do. Get the Open Look and Motif spec's and style guides. Read them cover to cover. Think about what type of GUI you want on Saber-C. Think about which GUI will let you achieve the best possible interface for Saber-C and pick that one. I think a lot of people picked Motif becase of the 3D look. When Motif came out, Open Look was still kinda klunky looking (though not anymore). Don't let something as shallow as just the look be the deciding factor. Consider the feel as well. Is it easy to interact with? I'm telling you that you'll probably find Open Look a more robust GUI and easier to interact with than Motif. Things like pinnup menus are a great idea. It's a compromise between menus and panels full of buttons. You get both. If you want the panel of buttons, just pin the menu! Btw, you may get some negative things about XView off the net. Most people are using the source code version that came with R4. I've been using version 2 beta, which will have a source release later this summer. It's a lot better than the 1.0 stuff - so keep that in mind. >Lastly, if you are a Saber-C user and prefer one or the other >interface, please let me know so that we can get some idea of how the >market feels. Well, I think I've expressed that already! :-) To summarize: - XView is free (in source form) - XView has 3D - XView is (pretty) portable (they've done a DEC, HP and ?? port). - XView has DevGUIDE for building UI layouts - XView has an easy API (esp. for SunView programmers) - XView is a supported Sun product (it'll be around for a while) - Open Look is a better GUI (but read the spec's - find out for yourself)! Btw, I like the idea of what you're doing -- querying the net and such before making a decision (or letting marketting make it for you). Hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to write or call me. Ciao! -- * Isaac J. Salzman ---- * The RAND Corporation - Information Sciences Dept. /o o/ / * 1700 Main St., PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138 | v | | * AT&T : +1 213-393-0411 x6421 or x7923 (ISL lab) _| |_/ * Internet : salzman@rand.org / | | * UUCP : !uunet!rand.org!salzman | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From nazgul@alphalpha.com Mon Jun 4 15:16:14 1990 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 90 11:43:30 EDT From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) To: jimf Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits In article <9005302137.AA13391@lance> you write: >Solbourne has a toolkit which is switch-selectable to be either >OpenLook or Motif compliant. I would take those claims with a grain of salt. While you can use their toolkit to produce both, the Motif side at least is not 100% compliant, and there are some things that any good application would do in Motif that you cannot do in their toolkit without checking to see whether or not you are running in Motif or OL mode. There was a panel at Xhibition on writing apps to multiple GUIs, and garya@Solbourne.COM (Gary Aitken) and myself had some disagreement on this subject :-). Incidentally, their toolkit is currently available from AT&T, I'm not sure of the price, but more critical from your standpoint, is that it is a true C++ toolkit, and cannot be used from C. >If you know of any other toolkit than these that gives either or both >OpenLook and Motif look-and-feel, please let me know the same >information. Visix has a Motif-compliant toolkit, but they claim they either won't license it, or will charge (literally) millions of dollars for it if they did. >If you've worked with either OSF/Motif or XView in a commercial >application, I'd like to know your experiences with either, especially >particular problems or things which worked particularly well. I'm using Motif, from OSF. DECs lack of experience with object oriented programming methodology certainly shows through, but I think over time the toolkit will be improved, and I'm more interested in market stability right now than perfection - particularly since I haven't yet seen a perfect toolkit. >Lastly, if you are a Saber-C user and prefer one or the other >interface, please let me know so that we can get some idea of how the >market feels. I'm afraid I'm not a user of Saber C - now if you want beta customers for C++ sometime.... In any case, I think that Motif is the clear winner. We've yet to have a customer ask us for anything else, and everyone else I've spoken to has had the same experience. Sun of course, asks for Open Look, as does AT&T - but their customers don't. -kee -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alphalpha Software, Inc. | Voice/Fax: 617/646-7703 | Home: 617/641-3805 | | 148 Scituate St. | Smart fax, dial number. | | | Arlington, MA 02174 | Dumb fax, dial number, | BBS: 617/641-3722 | | nazgul@alphalpha.com | wait for ring, press 3. | 300/1200/2400 baud | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From jmb@attunix.att.com Mon Jun 4 15:25:19 1990 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 90 15:14 EDT To: attunix!att!saber.com!jimf Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits | If you know of any other toolkit than these that gives either or both | OpenLook and Motif look-and-feel, please let me know the same | information. Your mail doesn't mention what's commonly referred to as Xt+ or the OPEN LOOK Intrisics Toolkit. It's an OPEN LOOK toolkit/widget set architected with vanilla MIT Xt Intrinsics. We're currently working on our third release; it's quite stable, and there are many outside agencies working on applications. Cost is about $1K for either source (1-800-828-UNIX) or 386/3B2 binary (1-800-247-1212). Regards, Jim Bash AT&T Bell Labs / UNIX Software Operation Room 5-223, 190 River Road, Summit, NJ 07901 (201) 522-6649 attunix!jmb / jmb@attunix.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From jmb@attunix.att.com Mon Jun 4 17:25:35 1990 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 90 17:05 EDT To: attunix!att!saber.com!jimf Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits We have ported the library from the 386 to 3B2s and Suns. There are other third-party ports nearing completion, including one to HPs by Melillo Consulting (201-873-0075) that you'll hear about soon (press release later this week). I led the porting effort of our recent 2.0 release to the Sun-4, and it was largely straightforward (most snags had to do with Sun's X11/NeWS server and font dependencies). That work was the basis for the OpenWindows version you have now. Jim Bash AT&T Bell Labs jmb@attunix.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vania@osf.org Wed Jun 6 05:45:39 1990 From: Vania Joloboff <vania@osf.org> To: jimf Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits Date: Fri, 01 Jun 90 17:06:44 -0400 > I am aware of the XView and OSF/Motif toolkits, and have heard that > Solbourne has a toolkit which is switch-selectable to be either > OpenLook or Motif compliant. Depend what you call Motif compliance. The Motif emulation I know of (solbourne is one of them) look like Motif. They do not have the same behavior in terms of keyboard traversal (mostly they have very little keyboard traversal) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From djb@cbnews.att.com Thu Jun 7 10:59:40 1990 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 90 10:37:53 EDT From: djb@cbosgd.att.com (David J Bryant) To: jimf Subject: Re: Wanted: OpenLook and Motif toolkits Jim, I have not used the Solbourne toolkit, but at Xhibition '90 a few weeks ago I attended a detailed tutorial on it given by Gary Aitken of Solborne. The OI toolkit is a full C++ toolkit implementation that bypasses the X Intrinsics and provides equivalent functionality as part of each supported object in the toolkit. I was very impressed, but it does represent a significant departure from the "standard" X Intrinsics-based toolkit approach. I'd encourage you to look into it. You can get info from Solbourne, who will continue to do the development, or from AT&T, who has signed on to offer source and licenses. I don't have the Solbourne info here with me, but if you haven't already gotten it, send me mail and or call and I'll get it for you. Another toolkit available but not mentioned in your comp.windows.x article is the Xt+ toolkit from AT&T. This is a full X Intrinsic-based Open Look toolkit (unlike XView). It is currently available on AT&T's 6386 products, From Quest Systems for all members of the Sun workstation family, and will be provided as a fully supported part of Sun's OpenWindows 2.0 platform scheduled for release in July of this year. Porting work to other platforms (AT&T 3B2, HP, etc.) are under way. I have used Xt+ for almost a year now for commercial development, and am very happy with it. (Of course you'd probably expect an AT&T employee to say that, but it's true.) I think the folks at AT&T responsible for Xt+ have produced a good toolkit, have been very helpful and responsive to our needs, and have shown a strong interest in continuing to provide more functionality in the Xt+ toolkit than you can get from the OSF/Motif toolkit. (In that regard, I also consider Open Look to be technically and usably superior to OSF/Motif.) Please take a look at the Xt+ toolkit if you haven't already. If you'd like names and phone numbers of contacts, please let me know and I'll put you in touch with the right folks at AT&T. As I said, for the record, I far prefer Open Look to OSF/Motif. I am in the process of encouraging the acquisition of Saber-C for widespread use here in my organization. I've heard excellent things about it, looked it over at Xhibition '90, and believe it's the kind of tool we need. I have presented my case to my management and am expecting word in the next week. For what it's worth, my organization is responsible for establishing standard product platforms and development environments across a large section of AT&T Bell Laboratories, AT&T Network Systems, and AT&T. We supply technology and tools to over fifty active projects. I am personally working with approximately twenty projects in their development of graphical user interfaces, all using Open Look and Xt+. I fear I'd have a tough time encouraging use of Saber-C as a standard tool if it was available in a OSF/Motif version but not an Open Look one. (This has been an impediment in the adoption of some X desktop tools such as Looking Glass, which offer only OSF/Motif.) Good luck in your evaluation and decision making process. If there's any information or assistance I can render, please don't hesitate to contact me. UUCP: att!cbosgd!djb David Bryant att!cborion!djb AT&T Bell Laboratories INTERNET: djb@cbosgd.att.com Room 1B-256 cborion!djb@att.com 6200 East Broad Street PHONE: (614) 860-4516 Columbus, Ohio 43213 FAX: (614) 868-4302 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From xpert-mailer@expo.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jun 21 08:38:52 1990 Date: 21 Jun 90 04:52:10 GMT From: eos!shelby!neon!neon.Stanford.EDU!ham@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter R. Ham) Subject: Re: choosing a toolkit To: xpert@expo.lcs.mit.edu We have the same problem in our group. If you are using C++ and are not very constrained by strict Motif/OpenLook compliance, the I recommend InterViews. It's the best toolkit that I've seen so far. The toolkits that I've used are: InterViews Xtk Mac Toolbox raw Xlib --