From drh@acm.org Tue Oct 28 07:02:31 CST 1997 Article: 74720 of comp.lang.tcl Path: uuneo.neosoft.com!ultraneo.neosoft.com!news2.amd.com!txnntp.amd.com!canntp.amd.com!amd!amdahl.com!pacbell.com!newsgate.tandem.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-sea-19.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!166.82.1.9!ralph.vnet.net!not-for-mail From: "D. Richard Hipp" Newsgroups: comp.lang.tcl,comp.windows.x.motif Subject: Re: Elk versus Tcl/TK Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:38:12 -0500 Organization: Hwaci Lines: 28 Message-ID: <34555014.6E39C686@acm.org> References: <3453BFB5.41C6@signature.below> <3454A186.41C6@signature.below> <3454FBE9.41C6@signature.below> <633edr$ogo$1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.82.190.63 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; U; Linux 2.0.30 i686) To: Cameron Laird Xref: uuneo.neosoft.com comp.lang.tcl:74720 comp.windows.x.motif:59154 Cameron Laird wrote: > > Safe summary: both Motif and Tk > have their places. Why would anyone want to use Motif if Tk is an option? Is there anything for which Motif is better than Tk? Both allow you to build stand-alone executables. But Tk is faster and easier to program, yields a smaller and faster executable, and has much more powerful widgets. Tk is infinitely easier to debug, has far fewer bugs, and is not bound by a proprietary license. It also works on more platforms. So if you have a choice (you are not constrained by legacy code or the need to use a third-party widget that is only available for Motif), why would anyone every choose Motif over Tk. For that matter, why would anyone choose ANY toolkit over Tk, given a choice? Why do people choose Qt over Tk? It makes no sense to me. Can someone explain? -- D. Richard Hipp -- drh@acm.org -- http://users.vnet.net/drh