bryan@ole.UUCP (Bryan Paulson) (01/17/90)
I am interested in the pros and cons for OSF/Motif, NeWS, Sun/Open Windows,
and any other GUI toolkits people have had experience developing applications
with.
I am looking for the following impressions:
o Versatility - Can a scale valuator have a color spectrum displayed along
side of the slider? If not, what range of data can the scale contain?
How versatile are other control objects(ie. buttons, integer entry fields,
etc.)? What can be done if a toolkit does not have a control you desire
or the control is not robust enough to handle a needed feature?
o Platform Independence - Do these toolkits port easily to different
platforms(ie. Apollo, Sun, Silicon Graphics, etc.)?
o Learning Curve - How easy is it to learn if you have experience with another
GUI toolkit or have written one yourself? Is the documentation good?
Is customer service good?
o GUI builders - What tools are built on top of these toolkits to allow an
application builder an interactive tool to design and test a GUI?
How versatile are these tools?
I will gladly compile and post any information I receive.
Thank you for your help.
--
Bryan O. Paulson (UUCP: ...!uw-beaver!sumax!ole!bryan)
Seattle Silicon Corporation
3075 112th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98004 (206)-828-4422anantha%ravi@Sun.COM (Anantha Srirama) (01/17/90)
In comp.windows.misc you write: >I am interested in the pros and cons for OSF/Motif, NeWS, Sun/Open Windows, >and any other GUI toolkits people have had experience developing applications >with. >I am looking for the following impressions: > o Versatility - Can a scale valuator have a color spectrum displayed along > side of the slider? If not, what range of data can the scale contain? > How versatile are other control objects(ie. buttons, integer entry fields, > etc.)? What can be done if a toolkit does not have a control you desire > or the control is not robust enough to handle a needed feature? > o Platform Independence - Do these toolkits port easily to different > platforms(ie. Apollo, Sun, Silicon Graphics, etc.)? > o Learning Curve - How easy is it to learn if you have experience with another > GUI toolkit or have written one yourself? Is the documentation good? > Is customer service good? A couple of weeks ago someone from Bellcore posted a summary of his efforts with different GUIs. Look in the comp.windows... for more info. > o GUI builders - What tools are built on top of these toolkits to allow an > application builder an interactive tool to design and test a GUI? > How versatile are these tools? Sun has announced/demoed GUIDE (Graphical User Interface Development Env.) It should be shipping as a developers release pretty soon, weeks not months. This package lets you build interfaces conforming to OpenLook specification. I don't believe Motif has any such tool to build interfaces. BTW, I am not your source on when GUIDE will ship. My information on the release date is coming from some of the publications, not internal sources. >I will gladly compile and post any information I receive. >Thank you for your help. >-- >Bryan O. Paulson (UUCP: ...!uw-beaver!sumax!ole!bryan) >Seattle Silicon Corporation >3075 112th Ave NE >Bellevue, WA 98004 (206)-828-4422 I don't know the technical merits/demerits of each of these GUIs. But from what I have been reading about OSF, Motif may be the next generation of vapor- ware. For all practical purposes OSF is melting away just like US Memories. Major papers/publications/journals have been talking about this for a couple of months now, the battle may be over with SVR4/OpenLook winning in the second round by technical knock-out. Seriously consider the availability/support of Motif in future before you decide on what system you are going to use. BTW, these are all my biased opinions and do not reflect those of my employer who is in the SVR4 camp :-> -Anantha- ******************************************************************************* Anantha Padmanabha N. Srirama | USENET: ...sun!anantha@Eng Sun Microsystems | ARPA: anantha@Eng.Sun.COM 2550, Garcia Ave. MS: 16-02 | Mt. View, CA-94043 | *******************************************************************************
uccjcm@uncecs.edu (John McLendon) (01/17/90)
In article <130335@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> anantha%ravi@Sun.COM (Anantha Srirama) writes: ><deletion>Motif may be the next generation of vapor- >ware. For all practical purposes OSF is melting away just like US Memories. >Major papers/publications/journals have been talking about this for a couple I would like to see some of these major papers/publications specifically addressing the issue of GUI, not SVR4 v. AIX/OSF. Other than Sun propoganda of course. My impression is that Motif has been generally accepted. >of months now, the battle may be over with SVR4/OpenLook winning in the second >round by technical knock-out. Seriously consider the availability/support of <stuff deleted...> >Anantha Padmanabha N. Srirama | USENET: ...sun!anantha@Eng Considering Suns financial performance over the past two quarters, I think it would well behoove us all to seriously consider support availability/support issues. It might also behoove us to consider usability issues as well. Many of my customers have a large number of PC's (doesn't everybody) running MS Windows. When I look at a GUI, I look for three things: ease of use/training, support for disparate platforms, and functionality. OpenLook fails on two of three because Motif simulates PM behavior and will run on other boxes. A significant number of my users have used MS Windows. I'm sorry anantha, but the only way I'll buy a Sun (and I would certainly like to!) is that Motif is available(it is), and the hardware interfaces needed for my equipment are available(they ain't, S-BUS is new, but we'll work around that with time). On the other hand, I want SVR4 (probably with the multiprocessing extensions specified by OSF), but I won't abandon Motif. The verdict is: SVR4 (YES) Motif (YES) OpenLook (NO) (OSF's new OS) (We'll see) I don't want to start a huge flambe' so.... I will not reply, I'm going water skiing! Signed: John McLendon uunet\ (919) 846-7931 (home) >mcnc!ecsvax.uncecs.edu!uccjcm (919) 941-5730 (play) gatech/ -- Signed: John McLendon uunet\ (919) 846-7931 (home) >mcnc!ecsvax.uncecs.edu!uccjcm (919) 941-5730 (play) gatech/
mayer@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Niels Mayer) (01/17/90)
In article <130335@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> anantha%ravi@Sun.COM (Anantha Srirama) writes: >> o GUI builders - What tools are built on top of these toolkits to allow an >> application builder an interactive tool to design and test a GUI? >> How versatile are these tools? > >Sun has announced/demoed GUIDE (Graphical User Interface Development Env.) It >should be shipping as a developers release pretty soon, weeks not months. This >package lets you build interfaces conforming to OpenLook specification. "Weeks not Months" -- you really expect us to believe such announcements after the way openwindows' release has been delayed?? >I >don't believe Motif has any such tool to build interfaces. Motif does have a tool to build interfaces, prototype applications interactively, etc. take a look at my WINTERP -- An object-oriented rapid prototyping, development and delivery environment for building user-customizable applications with the OSF Motif UI Toolkit. WINTERP is available for free, and can be used for free in products. You can get it via anonymous ftp from expo.lcs.mit.edu oldcontrib/winterp.tar.Z (see also oldcontrib/winterp.README for introductory info...) Aside from my newborn baby, there's also the OSF's UIL (gag, cough, retch) and Visual Edge/HP's UIMX (a spiffy Motif-based direct manipulation builder.) ... >I don't know the technical merits/demerits of each of these GUIs. But from >what I have been reading about OSF, Motif may be the next generation of vapor- >ware.... Gee, that's what they've been saying about OpenLook too. Technical merits aside, OpenLook apps have the additional disadvantage of being butt-ugly -- I distinctly remember puking multicolored chunks after seeing the OpenLook specs for the first time; seeing and playing with OpenLook applications confirmed my suspicions.... >For all practical purposes OSF is melting away just like US Memories. >Major papers/publications/journals have been talking about this for a couple >of months now, No matter which way the politics of OSF go, you can bet that companies that have invested significant efforts in the Motif toolkit will be offering Motif as supported parts of their products for a good long time to come... HP, for example, is shipping Motif 1.0 (sans UIL, thank god) right now in HPUX 7.0. If your comment has to do with the various management turmoils that have been reported in the trade rags, I can quickly point my finger back to SUN and ask pointed questions about the future viability of SUN given the number of resignations and management turnovers that have recently been reported. But the politics of large organizations aren't what we're talking about here. Everybody knows that the peter principle is in full effect in every large organization. Fortunately, we are able to put up with management as a necessary evil, and get on with technical progress ... It's the grass-roots perception and adoptation of technologies that count, and in that respect, OpenLook is losing. Motif is out there, available and being used. I very much doubt that SUN's competitors, (e.g. DEC, HP) will be moving on to a new toolkit in the near future, and they certainly won't be moving on to OpenLook. Everybody is sick of rewriting their applications to fit the latest toolkit, so any of the minute technical differences between toolkits won't matter as long as the toolkit is perceived as being standard, widely used, and good-enough-to-do-the-job. The masses seem to think that Motif fits that bill. I certainly do. > the battle may be over with SVR4/OpenLook winning in the second >round by technical knock-out. Please elaborate on the technical knockout. I thought you just said "I don't know the technical merits/demerits of each of these GUIs". >Seriously consider the availability/support of >Motif in future before you decide on what system you are going to use. Likewise for OpenLook. Likewise for anything. Disclaimer: The above statements are my own only. They are not an official view of HP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Niels Mayer -- hplabs!mayer -- mayer@hplabs.hp.com Human-Computer Interaction Department Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto, CA. *
anantha%ravi@Sun.COM (Anantha Srirama) (01/18/90)
anantha%ravi@Sun.COM (Anantha Srirama) writes:
<stuff deleted to save space>
Ignore my previous posting responding to a discussion on the Motif <-> OpenLook
It was posted by mistake when I intended to just reply to the author.
-Anantha-
*******************************************************************************
Anantha Padmanabha N. Srirama | USENET: ...sun!anantha@Eng
Sun Microsystems | ARPA: anantha@Eng.Sun.COM
2550, Garcia Ave. MS: 16-02 |
Mt. View, CA-94043 |
*******************************************************************************jjf@hjuxa.UUCP (FRANEY) (01/18/90)
In article <130335@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> anantha%ravi@Sun.COM (Anantha Srirama) writes: ><deletion>Motif may be the next generation of vapor- >ware. For all practical purposes OSF is melting away just like US Memories. >Major papers/publications/journals have been talking about this for a couple According to January 1990 BYTE (p 286) OSF Motif deserves notice as much as EISA, and the 80486. In the one third page write up, BYTE says: Motif is attractive and useful, and it runs on any X window base. It furnishes a consisten user interface acros operating system by offering a Presentation Manager look and the Macintosh intuitive easy of operating on UNIX and VMS machines. .... Given the increased interest in UNIX as an operatins system for high performance computing, we consider Motif an achievement worthy of recognition. According to BYTE, Motif is a combination of technology from HP, Microsoft and DEC. Motif has been released to OSF members and SCO is now shipping a product. John Franey
dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) (01/18/90)
anantha%ravi@Sun.COM (Anantha Srirama) writes: > Some unforgettable stuff about OSF, snow, vaporware and technical knock-outs. We had a good laugh over this one. Especially our support group, finding they don't exist. And then: > > Ignore my previous posting responding to a discussion on the Motif<->OpenLook > It was posted by mistake when I intended to just reply to the author. Yes, but that doesn't make it any the less untrue. I wonder how much misinformation like this has been sent out by mail. Since it *has* reached the public's eye... You want to consider the vaporwareness of OSF/Motif. Consider: since August 21 1990 we have shipped to hundreds of licensees, and the shipping rate isn't slowing. You comment on the availability of OSF/Motif. Last time I looked, there were 33 platform vendors (whose names I recognized, that is) with Motif licenses. More? Motif is licensed in 25 countries, including all major European countries, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Australia. Motif has been endorsed by the EEC as the GUI of choice; it has also received several prestigious industry awards. Hardware vendors representing over 75% of the international computer market, including IBM, HP, DEC, Nixdorf, Hitachi & Sony have all either started shipping, or announced plans to ship, Motif on their platforms. There are over a dozen application companies currently shipping Motif applications, as well as major systems suppliers to the 386 market (notably Interactive and SCO) shipping Motif systems. There were over 30 vendors demonstrating Motif at the Unix EXPO tradeshow in New York, and there are approx. 40 scheduled to demo Motif in their booths at UniForum next week. As for OSF melting away: do you really think, with all that support, we would be allowed to? Anyway, come to Uniforum and look at our members' booths. See OSF/Motif running on the first OSF/1 snapshot. Oh yes, IDTs. We prefer to let an IDT be part of a vendor's added value, not the Motif core. There have been public demos from HP (both Winterp and an IDT in a joint effort from Visual Edge), Telesoft, ICS, Nixdorf, and I apologize if I forgot anyone. DEC has announced plans for an IDT, but I haven't seen it. That's the longest public response to a private mailing I've seen for while :-) -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks) (01/19/90)
In article <1752@hjuxa.UUCP> jjf@hjuxa.UUCP (FRANEY) writes: > >According to BYTE, Motif is a combination of technology from HP, Microsoft >and DEC. Motif has been released to OSF members and SCO is now shipping a >product. > I haven't seen Byte yet, but if it says this it's wrong. (Come to think, it's wrong even if Byte doesn't say it :-) Since August 21st 1989, OSF/Motif has been available to anyone, member or not. And, of course, SCO isn't the only company shipping a product. -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
keith@startrek.eng.ohio-state.edu (Keith M Boyer) (02/09/90)
In article <BOB.90Jan19125859@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >In article <1752@hjuxa.UUCP> jjf@hjuxa.UUCP (FRANEY) writes: > According to January 1990 BYTE (p 286) > Motif is attractive and useful... > >`Attractive' is in the eye of the beholder. The other day, when The other day someone important (in the CIS dept) stopped me in the hall and said "Don't we have Motif on our HPs"? To which I responded no, but we will when we get and install HP-UX 7.0. Then he said "I think we should choose one set of windowing tools and put them on all our machines. Why don't you and the others discuss this and let me know which." So I went looking for the right place to ask the question on the net and here I find this thread looking me right in the face. So, Bob, Amanda, anyone. Do you have pointers to a real comparison of the choices, both from a technical and political (which one will survive) point of view on where to place our emphasis. The person I mentioned seems real serious about having a SINGLE set of tools rather than several. I figured I would ask here first and then talk with others at work after I had a better handle on this. It really needs to be a dispassionate comparison, no OSF bashing. 8-) Forgive me if this is old hat to some or all of you. Thanks, ++keith -=- - Keith M. Boyer Department of Computer and Information Science -- THE Ohio State University 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 - keith@cis.ohio-state.edu or ...!osu-cis!cis.ohio-state.edu!keith EVERYTHING SHOULD BE MADE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE,BUT NOT SIMPLER-Albert Einstein
klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee) (02/10/90)
There has probably been megabytes of arguments on X vs. NeWS and Motif vs. OpenLook. I think the technical concensus is that there is little practical difference between Motif and Open Look. Also there is little technical difference between X and NeWS, except for very small machines (where X probably wins because of its less complex server) and very unusual machines (where NeWS probably wins because of its high-level-only graphics model). My metric in both cases is efficiency (human time) of typical end users and application programmers. The real reason for choosing, in most sites, will be applications. If you're a software developer, you should choose what your customers are using. If you're a customer, you have to choose from what your vendors are selling. I know that's kind of circular, but that's how capitalism works. Each side can influence the other, though (user groups and advertising). X is winning the window system war because customers require it for interoperability and all vendors ship it. The OpenLook vs. Motif war is still raging, but this is less important. If you use X, applications (other than window managers) using OpenLook and Motif can generally exist simultaneously and interoperate properly. The look & feel will be slightly different, though. Eventually (possibly soon), there will be enough applications on the market so that users can make look & feel one of their purchasing decisions. Some user surveys do indicate that Motif is more popular, but this market is relatively new and subject to change. You may ask, why aren't their standards in this area? The answer is there will be soon. The accredited standards organizations (ANSI, NIST, IEEE, X/OPEN, ISO) are all basing their window system standards on the X Window System. All but ANSI are also requiring the X Toolkit. IEEE is considering the OpenLook vs. Motif issue, but has not made much progress yet. Ken Lee DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif. Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (02/13/90)
In article <2716@bacchus.dec.com> klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee) writes:
You may ask, why aren't their standards in this area? The answer
is there will be soon.
Too soon. Standards should arise by popular acclaim and widespread
adoption, not by pronouncement. Too many issues are not yet fully
understood, and premature standards stifle real progress. Worse, too
many standards are being declared for political and marketing reasons,
not technical. Troubling times, these.
Yes, end users need to be able to use their computers conveniently,
and their computers need to be able to talk to each other. And yes,
we've seen lots of progress because lots of very talented people have
been working very hard on this stuff. But that's no reason to declare
The Final Word on Standards for The Rest of History already. At least
let the technology shake down a little first.amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (02/14/90)
In article <BOB.90Feb12125228@volitans.MorningStar.Com>, bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: > Too many issues are not yet fully > understood, and premature standards stifle real progress. Worse, too > many standards are being declared for political and marketing reasons, > not technical. Troubling times, these. Indeed. Another problem, which I find most troubling, is that the computer industry is not yet mature, either from a marketing standpoint or an engineering one. Premature adoption and enforcement of "standards" for political reasons is tantamount to enforcing a set of design compromises and guesses that may no longer be appropriate by the time the "standard" hits people's desks. Open Look and Motif are both reasonable and useful approaches to using today's workstations, but them darn hardware hackers are already building tomorrow's. In the Indy 500, the technology is contrained to past limitations. This may make for an interesting sporting event, but the technology industry has more on the line. In a couple of years, when we have workstations that can maintain 75-100 scalar MIPS, with memory cheap and fast enough to handle big, fast 24+8 bit screens, are we going to happy with having "standardized" on interfaces designed for the likes of the Sun 3/50 & 3/60? I won't. Among the reasons that interfaces keep changing are: - Hardware gets faster and cheaper, thus changing the raw materials that software designers have to work with. - More and more people are using these things for more and more different purposes. This is teaching us a lot about what actually makes for an effective user interface, but we still have a lot to learn. - Things that were impractical n years ago will be well worth the effort in n more years. In 1980, a 20 MIPS workstation would have been pie in the sky, and waste except for special high-demand applications. Last month at Uniforum they were all over the place. In 1980, Live full-motion video overlaying a 19" color screen was a dream. Today, it's only pricey. If I had a crystal ball I'd predict that for the next couple of decdes, anyway, any place that "standardizes" on a uniform interface will end up restandardizing every 3-5 years. It would be nice to be able to do, but we just ain't there yet. This industry is just starting to hit adolescence, and you know what that's like... :-). -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (02/19/90)
In article <2716@bacchus.dec.com> klee@decwrl.dec.com writes: |Also there is little |technical difference between X and NeWS, except for very small machines |(where X probably wins because of its less complex server) and very |unusual machines (where NeWS probably wins because of its |high-level-only graphics model). My metric in both cases is efficiency |(human time) of typical end users and application programmers. Interesting metric. I think the important thing to consider is the application. Some applications don't need NeWS. Others are very difficult to do without it. Examples: Suppose you wanted to draw a circle. And you needed the roundest possible circle. NeWS could use anti-aliasing, high-resolution displays, and graphic accelerators. Ever look at a 10 by 10 pixel circle in X? Or a wide line drawn on a diagonal? Scalable windows. Easy to do with NeWS. Difficult with X. Light Weight processes - At the MIT X consortium, there were a lot of discussion on light weight processes in the server. HP and others were investigating extensions to X, as they felt this would be useful. NeWS had this all along. NeWS allows you to decide where the user interaction takes place: client or server. It is clear that for some applications, NeWS is too powerful and complex. But it is clearly a next-generation window system, as it has solved problems that X programmers have just started to look at. | |The real reason for choosing, in most sites, will be applications. If |you're a software developer, you should choose what your customers are |using. If you're a customer, you have to choose from what your vendors |are selling. I know that's kind of circular, but that's how capitalism |works. Each side can influence the other, though (user groups and |advertising). X is winning the window system war because customers |require it for interoperability and all vendors ship it. | |The OpenLook vs. Motif war is still raging, but this is less |important. If you use X, applications (other than window managers) |using OpenLook and Motif can generally exist simultaneously and |interoperate properly. The look & feel will be slightly different, |though. Eventually (possibly soon), there will be enough applications |on the market so that users can make look & feel one of their |purchasing decisions. Some user surveys do indicate that Motif is |more popular, but this market is relatively new and subject to change. | |You may ask, why aren't their standards in this area? The answer is |there will be soon. The accredited standards organizations (ANSI, |NIST, IEEE, X/OPEN, ISO) are all basing their window system standards |on the X Window System. All but ANSI are also requiring the X |Toolkit. IEEE is considering the OpenLook vs. Motif issue, but has not |made much progress yet. | |Ken Lee |DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif. |Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com |uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee -- -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett
dent@unocss..unl.edu (Local Submission) (02/24/90)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >In article <8450001@hpfcdc.HP.COM> mhn@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Mark Notess) writes: >> Bill Buxton predicted a couple years ago that the Mac interface would >> become the COBOL of the 1990s. Interesting ... > And what does that mean? If I had to define COBOL, I'd say it is >an ancient, horrible, computer language which computer science types sneer >at, deride, and use as the punch line of endless jokes, yet is probably one >of the most commercially important languages used today. Well let's see... (tounge stuck firmly in cheek) Assuming that by "Mac Interface" Bill Buxton might have meant graphical interfaces (X-Windows, for example? It's feasible that Apple might port the Mac Interface to X... maybe not /likely/, but feasible. :-) "What's bigger than a toaster?" "The source for the X-Windows version of 'Hello World'." "What's bigger than a house?" "The source for the X-Windows version of 'Hello World'." "What's bigger than a major Interstate?" "The source for the X-Windows version of 'Hello World'." (you get the idea, I'm sure. :-) I don't think anyone would doubt, however, that X-Windows is probably becoming a very important (commercially) item in the computer idustry. So, I think you got it about right! :-) -/ Dave Caplinger /--------------------------------------------------------- Microcomputer Specialist, Campus Computing, Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha dent@zeus.unomaha.edu ...!uunet!unocss!dent DENT@UNOMA1
klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee) (02/28/90)
In article <2164@unocss..unl.edu>, dent@unocss..unl.edu (Local Submission) writes: > "What's bigger than a major Interstate?" > "The source for the X-Windows version of 'Hello World'." For the record, here is the X version of 'hello, world'. Bigger than an Interstate? You judge. ============== #include <X11/Intrinsic.h> #include <X11/StringDefs.h> #include <X11/Label.h> main(argc, argv) int argc; char **argv; { Widget top = XtInitialize(argv[0], "xhw", NULL, 0, &argc, argv); XtCreateManagedWidget("hello, world", labelWidgetClass, top, NULL, NULL); XtRealizeWidget(top); XtMainLoop(); } ============== Compile it with the basic X libraries and run it. What's more, by changing just 2 words in this program, you can convert from a simple user interface to a Motif or OpenLook user interface. Ken Lee DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif. Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee
janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) (02/28/90)
In article <2915@bacchus.dec.com>, klee@wsl (Ken Lee) writes: >For the record, here is the X version of 'hello, world'. Bigger than an >Interstate? You judge. How about, % xmessage -m "Hello, World" or % echo "Hello, World" | pipescript Might as well use the highest level toolkit you can... Bill -- Bill Janssen janssen.pa@xerox.com (415) 494-4763 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (03/01/90)
bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) writes: >If COBOL is so important, then tell why my University's >College of Computer Science dropped COBOL as an offered course? You are assuming that your University knows what is important in the marketplace, a shakey assumption, at best. It's hard to see what place COBOL could have ever had in a true computer "science" curriculum, anyway. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company(sm)]