[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Needed: Info on LISP X based toolkits

Received: from Think.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Oct 88  19:01:26 PDT
Received: from fafnir.think.com by Think.COM; Thu, 6 Oct 88 21:13:20 EDT
Received: from Think.COM by fafnir.think.com; Thu, 6 Oct 88 21:57:59 EDT
Return-Path: <mthome@vax.bbn.com>
Received: from VAX.BBN.COM by Think.COM; Thu, 6 Oct 88 21:12:57 EDT
Message-Id: <8810070112.AA01464@Think.COM>
To: Mike McMahon <MMcM@scrc-stony-brook.arpa>
Cc: lanning.pa@xerox.com, cl-windows@Think.COM, CommonLoops.pa@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Needed: Info on LISP X based toolkits 
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 06 Oct 88 14:52:00 -0400.
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 88 21:49:08 -0400
From: Mike Thome <mthome@vax.bbn.com>

		"I wonder how the word "standard" crept into your
	discourse.  Or rather, why you think the existence of one
	standard precludes all others.  The beauty of a reasonable,
	low-level standard like X and its direct CLX analogue is that you
	can have platform hardware independence and peaceful coexistence
	of a multitude of toolkits, or standards if you prefer."

Wazzat?!?  Obviously you are using some definition of "standard" I have
been previously unaware of...  The issue at hand (I thought) is to work
towards an OO-{window,user-interface}-{system,toolkit,"standard"} that we
could all more-or-less agree is sortof right enough to actually use so
that we can all write portable user interfaces.  If X/clx/clue/whatever is to
be one of MANY (key word here) possible platforms to build a REAL
standard user interface package on, then it is the wrong level to be
arguing at.