From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ff744c4726ec64fd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "John Duncan" Subject: Re: What is differance between thick and thin binding? Date: 1999/08/11 Message-ID: <7oqusi$7s6$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 511327584 References: <934219556.19836@www.remarq.com> <7oo2d2$gjm$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <37B0429C.EA2184F1@pwfl.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Organization: University of Pittsburgh X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-08-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > My impression of CLAW was that it was substantially more than a "binding" - that > it provided its own environment which rides on top of the Win32api, but does not > attempt to exactly duplicate it. Sure, I was just using the vendor's own words, from the website. I believe they say "CLAW is a THICK binding to win32" In any similar way, one could view MFC as a thick binding to Win32, because it retains win32-style everythings except for its document/view model which has no representation in the SDK. MFC provides an easier-to-handle message pump as well. So it is a good level above the SDK, and requires different programming, but not a significantly different mentality. On the other hand, I wouldn't view Trestle (M3) as a binding to a windowing system, but I'd rather see it as an abstraction. The binding takes place far below and is then abstracted to something more generic across windowing systems. Trestle's predecessor was actually designed for the Firefly workstation. So it doesn't look too much like X when it comes down to it. I don't know where a system like QT would come in. It's a little weird. -John