Talk:X Toolkit Intrinsics

The last link is dead (Comparison of X11 Toolkits).

It is probably more difficult to write software that interacts with Xt than it is to write your own version that works exactly the way you want atop Xlib.

This seems like someone's opinion; however well-founded, it would be better to have some kind of cited reference for this statement.

--Brian Gaeke (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

using your memory in lieu of a reliable source[edit]

That doesn't work well, leads (as in a recent edit) to mis-remembering things. TEDickey (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Xt's code was dedicated to parsing settings[edit]

That comment appears to be untrue, and since there's no WP:RS, can be removed. In a quick check of the source, these files are relevant to the comment:

  1126   444   |Convert.c                                                       
  1902   518>  |Converters.c                                                    
  1084   364   |Initialize.c                                                    
  2210   814   |TMparse.c                                                       
----------------                                                                
  6322  2140>   total lines/statements

However, Xt is much larger than that:

46841 14898>   total lines/statements

i.e.,. the modules for parsing are almost 15% of the total. TEDickey (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

widely used[edit]

An edit added FLTK a while back, but checking typical installs fails to support the notion that it is "widely used" (less than 10% as many occurrences as Xaw). Some WP:RS is needed, with actual numbers TEDickey (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A typical install, for instance, might use Debian's packaging system. According to that source, X Toolkit is a dependency of 239 other packages, while (combining the versions of fltk) fltk accounts for 60 (and the list is for in turn less-used programs than those by X Tookkit). Given that, it is dubious to argue that fltk should lead a sentence talking about widely-used toolkits. TEDickey (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. The reason for "most" is because the list included GTK and Qt, which do in fact cover more than 50% of the toolkit dependencies. I have no idea why FLTK is in there but adding it does not cause "most" to be false. Still it should be removed rather than just putting "dubious" on things. I tried and it got reverted, no idea why.Spitzak (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was on the clause introducing fltk. If it had applied to the whole sentence, it would have been at the end of the sentence. TEDickey (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just think whoever thought it was wrong should have fixed it by removing FLTK, rather than changing "most" to "some" and adding the "dubious" tag.Spitzak (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

promotional term is not part of title[edit]

The phrase "Definitive Guides", etc., does not appear on the title or copyright pages of these books. It is merely a promotional term which should not be part of the citation TEDickey (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]