From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 1 02:47:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA28846 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 02:47:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA28835 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 02:47:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA24789; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 02:46:59 -0800 (PST) To: Andrew Kenneth Milton cc: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith), garbanzo@hooked.net, nectar@NECTAR.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Out of Box experience (Was: Re: How is selection made of what goes into CDrom?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 1997 19:40:13 +1100." <199712010840.TAA23965@mother.sneaker.net.au> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 02:46:58 -0800 Message-ID: <24785.880973218@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Errr no. There is a pd/freeware curses tk implementation out there > that isn't vtcl. ctk.. it's in the ports. I know about Visual Tcl, > I meant to use SCO as an example of something that has dual modes. I've played a bit with this, yes. It scared me. :-) I basically don't think that Tk serves as a reasonable model for CUI programming and all of the Ctk interfaces I saw really sort of left me cold. If I wanted to write UI-neutral interfaces, I'd go to a higher level forms abstraction or use a set of "generic" interface widgets which mapped, modulo some last-minute style guide compliance fiddling, to curses or Tk based objects. This is not to say that Ctk has no place at all - I've fooled around with it a little and can say that if you're careful to write very *simple* interfaces, they're not too horrible to use in "curses mode" (assuming you can deal with not being able to focus on scrollbars at all :). Jordan