>> I know MUI's got many bugs and unimplemented features, but
>> Reaction hasn't got half of MUI's power nor as it it's ease
>> of programming.
>
>Now you ARE kidding, aren't you?
>
>Programming a MUI GUI is no different to programming a
>Reaction GUI - it's all based on (and in fact Reaction
>is simply new versions of) BOOPSI classes.
That's not totally true since MUI is only based on BOOPSI,
it uses some enhanced Object system. You can't compare
Reaction's IC system with MUI notifications and that's not the only point.
>What is there to be easy? OM_GET, OM_SET blah blah blah..
>
>No trouble at all. You could say that MUI's power is in
>it's third party classes, but then until now you've
>had to pay to get Reaction (ClassAct) includes and docs,
>but you can get them for free now with OS3.5 and the
>DevCD.
The DevCD is not what I call "free" nor is OS3.5. But the free criteria is not
suitable for me.
In fact, I don't think MUI is superior to everything nor is Reaction.
The truth is I'm co-developping another Object Oriented system including a
GUI engine. For me MUI does not enough (moreover it's not supported any more),
and Reaction does even less.
>Either way, Voyager for Reaction is a no-no, especially
>given Vapor's attitude to OS3.5 I'd think..
Voyager for Reaction is a good idea, 'cause Reaction is far faster than MUI
and it costs less ressources, but it represents too many work.
____________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - Info & Archive: http://www.vapor.com/
For Listserver Help: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "HELP"
To Unsubscribe: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UNSUBSCRIBE"
