NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/os/mswindo/programm/tools/1982

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-11 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!uotcsi2!revcan!software.mitel.com!kim!kim
From: [e-mail] (Kim Letkeman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools
Subject: Re: Protogen/ Owl directories
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:12:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 6 Jan 93 21:09:36 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Ryan) writes:

| I agree with the assessment that Protogen isn't worth the money.
| Things like OWL and MFC make Windows programming easier and
| simplistic tools like Protogen don't seem very useful.  I'd like to
| play around with a full-fledged prototyping, CASE, tool, but
| Protogen certainly isn't one.

While it's true that Protogen isn't ultra-powerful, it handles the
tedious job of setting up a framework very well. Copying one
application to another is not always an easy task because too much
must be changed or removed to make it worth the effort. And setting up
a complex app from scratch, even with OWL, is a pain. Protogen blasts
through it in minutes.

I'm not a big fan of keeping everything in Protogen format though.
Once generated, I cut the regen brackets out.

Since I got Protogen thrown in with BCC 3.1 + AF, I must say that it's
pretty good for the money.

Just another data point.
--
Kim Letkeman    [e-mail]