This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. C/C++ Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.C/C++Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++Template:WikiProject C/C++C/C++ Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

AFAIK, OWL was originally the framework that came with Actor, a language by the Whitewater Group. Borland only licensed it from them. I don't know about the licensing for later versions, i.e. if that was further developed by Borland, or also licensed from the Whitewater group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.173.69 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borland licensed Actor from Whitewater to create OWL 1 for Pascal and C++. The C++ OWL 2 and later versions were a complete rewrite from scratch. This was done to really take advantage of C++ language features. (since in 1.0 the C++ and Pascal versions were the same design) Carlquinn (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten most of the article. It now does not claim anything about origins. However, note that the whole article now only concerns the C++ library that shipped with Borland C++. Feel free to add additional history and background. 86.14.168.5 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability hasn't been shown. Half of the article mentions OWLNext, although it's actually I'd say a separate project which needs a separate article (if it does deserve) Half of the links provided don't work (some of them had pointed to the author's homepages); the author's name, Yuri, is Russian (or Ukrainian etc.), compare it to the grammar ("it allow", etc.), I think that section was written by Yuri himself (i.e. OWLNext's userbase is that limited). Note also: "Yura Bidus started an alternative to OWL/OWLNext called GUI Object Library." which has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Looks like self-advertisement. 77.40.47.17 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>> OWLNext probably does not deserve it's own page. It's distributed as a patch-set over the Borland's OWL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.2.142 (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the old controversial content in section OWLNext. It now only briefly describes the OWLNext project. 86.14.168.5 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall Borland had a library that allowed construction of GUI's using character graphics. I've seen this interface in a number of early 1990s packages. Does anyone recall if this was a version of OWL itself, or another product entirely? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different production, Turbo Vision. 88.159.65.111 (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]