home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: fc.hp.com!news
- From: koren@hpsrk.fc.hp.com (Steve Koren)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: MUI 3.2
- Date: 06 Feb 1996 12:39:46 -0700
- Organization: HP Fort Collins Site
- Sender: koren@hpsrk.fc.hp.com
- Message-ID: <oj6lomg2qgt.fsf@hpsrk.fc.hp.com>
- References: <3112e4a2@karkis.canit.se>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsrk.fc.hp.com
- In-reply-to: bornhall@karkis.canit.se's message of 02 Feb 96 22:29:22 CET
- X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.0.9
-
-
- bornhall@karkis.canit.se (Peter Bornhall) wrote:
-
- > would take BGUI over MUI any day. At least it's not as bloated as MUI,
-
- Bloated? I never considered it that. muimaster.library is, lessee, 156
- Kb. Given what it does (check out the devkit!) I think that's pretty
- darned good. You cannot get functionality for free.
-
- > I sincerely hope that they do NOT use MUI or its descendents in a
- > future Amiga OS.
-
- Well, I respect your opinion, but on the other hand I sure hope they
- *do* include it with the OS. It is much nicer than gadtools both from a
- user and a programmer perspective (the later is a considerable
- understatement actually), and its the first thing on the Amiga that
- comes close to providing the sort of power to developers that's been
- available on other platforms for a long time. The *last* thing the
- Amiga needs is to make developing applications a pain in the neck. The
- whole Amiga market is teetering on the brink right now, and we want to
- shove it back to land, not over the cliff. Not to mention that MUI
- almost transparently provides a bunch of features that all apps should
- be doing anyway, but usually don't otherwise because its a pain.
-
- Even if the application consistency provided by MUI was its only benefit
- I'd still consider it useful.
-
- - steve
-