CLIM mail archive



  Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 11:32:22 EDT
  From: peter c halverson <>
  To: clim@BBN.COM
  Subject: Re: More about OPEN-WINDOW-STREAM
  Reply-To: Pete Halverson <>
  Sun-Distance: 149966055 kilometers (1.002 AU)
  In <CMM.>, Peter Karp writes:
  > I for one wish that I did not have to deal with the window managers at
  > all.  I want to be able to specify at the CLIM level where and how a
  > window appears, both for application windows and popup menus.
  ...      I don't want to have to waste my time
  > dealing with the window managers.
  Conversely, I for one hope that I never have to deal with "rogue" X
  applications (like this would allow) at all.  The whole purpose of a window
  manager is to handle screen real estate, insulating us from the variability
  of different applications by providing cross-application consistency about
  where and how windows appear, both application windows and popup menus.
  In short, I don't want to have to waste my time dealing with issues that
  are the responsibility of window managers.  Please don't add this to CLIM.
I agree with the latter in the sense that CLIM is essentially
a portable front-end to the myriad of window managers that are
available.  But the issue as stated above is between two
religions in the software development community:

1. The look and feel of a program should not depend on the
   window manager underneath it.  Microsoft Word, for example.

2. The look and feel of all programs should look the same
   for a particular window manager.  Motif, for example.

I think both goals must be satisfied to some degree.  The
one that is more important depends on whether your users
stick to one application (but may use multiple platforms)
or stick to one platform (but use multiple applications).

I cannot say which is right, but in practice the latter goal
comes almost for free, and the former at great expense.

jeff morrill


Main Index | Thread Index