From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6511c3dc6e1155c9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:33:52 -0500 From: David Botton Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:33:51 -0400 Message-ID: <2004100517335116807%david@bottoncom> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: GWindows and David Botton User-Agent: Unison/1.5.2 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.176.74.83 X-Trace: sv3-CRxz77zWNJb38i11EKYdmf6eTwVWPI62lDZnhximdlI8Wh4nRYvXBdatJUNqrVhXHWfuhXPjU+EW0Z4!0lE4Un6QDvehWSWaRUssA917ploBOImtX8Gc2oJa2SkEC5KHwM/+4HbnYg7pxw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.19 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4756 Date: 2004-10-05T17:33:51-04:00 List-Id: For a small list of differences see: http://www.adapower.com/gwindows/GWindowsVsClaw.html Although my point is, a superset of design and functionality, yes. There may be individual APIs here and there in areas where CLAW has more or GWindows has more, but the key is that GWindows is more than a binding while still being as close to the API as a binding with out losing ease of use and understandability. I would say that GWindows is to CLAW what Borland's VCL is to MFC. The only thing is that CLAW is far away from being as complete as MFC while GWindows is just about on par with VCL of at least Delphi 3. My point is that GWindows as an MGPL project from the start and as such was, is and will be alive regardless. In fact any work going in to a new project or versions of CLAW released as MGPL become good grounds for its growth. If CLAW becomes completely MGPL the same can be said about it as well in relationship to GWindows. The question is, is it worth: Creating yet another competing framework (I am sure that CLAW is not going to disappear either) Negotiating to get as much of CLAW in to the MPGL space as possible when RR may not be ready yet to support an alternative financial model Starting with CLAW and then having to go through the sources to recode for UNICODE support and other important features needed to support the advancement of windows beyond Windows 9X/ME Redoing the creation thread of CLAW for COM/DCOM/ActiveX/.NET etc. GWindows is a more sound place to start as a code base and CLAW certainly has very much what to add. As for the MGPL version of CLAW not being a subset, if any of the GWindows users needed what was there we would have incorporated it already (some may have in their own projects :-) I have seen a few loose APIs I may borrow from there in the future for the GWindows base, just haven't had a time or need yet. David Botton On 2004-10-05 15:44:33 -0400, tmoran@acm.org said: >> * GWindows for the most part (but not all) is already a _superset_ of >> CLAW both in design and functionality > I know it's a political season and we're all used to ads stretching the > truth, but this is ridiculous. GWindows is not a _superset_ of even the > currently GMGPLed Introductory version of Claw, let alone the full version.