From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 21 06:20:23 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id GAA19299 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 06:20:23 -0700 Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id GAA19290 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 06:20:18 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA09446 (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Mon, 21 Aug 1995 07:58:59 -0500 Received: by bonkers.taronga.com (smail2.5p) id AA11062; 21 Aug 95 07:38:17 CDT (Mon) Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id HAA11059; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 07:38:16 -0500 From: Peter da Silva Message-Id: <199508211238.HAA11059@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: Re: Any reason we can't enable the bus mouse by default? To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 07:38:15 -0500 (CDT) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <7640.809007192@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Aug 21, 95 05:13:12 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1607 Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > Yes, I do understand that. The problem is, I don't *want* to run ctk > on X! But I do. So do a lot of people. I have a friend who wrote his own front end for Tk and curses that's switching over to ctk because it frees him from having to maintain an extra component of his package. And if you write the code with ctk in mind you get a reasonable UI both ways. > I don't want to run anything with such a convoluted API > regardless of how many underlying imaging models it supports. It's > just Too Evil(tm). You obviously have experience with a lot more APIs than I, but I don't see the Tk API being that convoluted compared with others that people are apparently entirely happy to use. It's simpler than any other X-based API I've ever used, for example. And it's become a very popular one. It's got momentum, and it's about time we grabbed onto stuff with momentum while we have a chance. For simple displays (and you don't want to use anything but simple screens with a curses interface: you don't have enough bits) Tk is not that hairy. > I hate to propose Yet Another Standard for TCL, but it's not like > Ousterhout ever started Tk with the intention of running it anywhere > but under X. Maybe now that he's at Sun he'll focus on evolving > something more cross-platform in scope and approach, but I suspect > that if he does, it won't look a lot like Tk. SCO started out with the intent of providing something that was suited for both curses and X and, you know what, it ended up looking a lot like Tk. I suspect that ctk is going to be the best thing we're going to get for a long time.