lottis@cs.washington.edu (Kent David Lottis) (04/12/91)
I know many (most) readers will screech in horror at the very thought, but has anyone even contemplated porting InterViews to, say, MS-WINDOWS? For that matter, has anyone ported InterViews to something other than X? How firmly entrenched is InterViews in X? Linton claims that the interface is confined to the few X11* modules. Is this true, or are there fundamental architectural factors that bind InterViews to X? Don't laugh too much at my ignorance ============================================================================ Kent Lottis lottis@june.cs.washington.edu [internet] Computer Science, U. of Washington - Seattle 9015 W. Shorewood Dr. #571 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 236-0172 From: lottis@cs.washington.edu (Kent David Lottis) Newsgroups: comp.windows.interviews Subject: as Summary: Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle Keywords:
linton@marktwain.rad.sgi.com (Mark Linton) (04/14/91)
In article <1991Apr11.213307.8460@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, lottis@cs.washington.edu (Kent David Lottis) writes: |> |> but has anyone even contemplated porting InterViews to, say, MS-WINDOWS? |> |> For that matter, has anyone ported InterViews to something other than X? |> |> How firmly entrenched is InterViews in X? Linton claims that the interface |> is confined to the few X11* modules. Is this true, or are there fundamental |> architectural factors that bind InterViews to X? Would that "architectural factors" were the hardest part of portability. Anyone attempting a port to DOS will find things like 8-character filenames and C++ environment compatibility as big a headache (if not bigger) as anything architectural.