CLIM mail archive


Using Processes in CLIM

> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 12:58:48 PST
> From: Jon L White <>
> Sounds like a good goal; this is also what I meant earlier by saying
> that it shouldn't be to hard to come up with a minimal "de facto" 
> standard, given that the platforms of interest basically cloned 
> Symbolics' design anyway.   Compare for example the ensuing difficulty 
> if some vendors had taken the Symbolics tasking model whereas others 
> had taken the Lisp/370--Interlisp "Spaghetti Stacking" model.
> Given that goal, then the version skew caused by subsequent development
> within Symbolics as well as the variations due to imperfect "cloning"
> by other vendors should not really be a problem.

This line of reasoning scares me.

It would be rather awful if the use of documented and supposedly portable
features of CLIM resulted in applications effectively only being portable to a
limited set of implementations which happen to provide a particular tasking

It would be even worse if the market dominance of CLIM (if it happens)
effectively forced a particular tasking model down the throats of any present
or future Lisp implementors.

A lot of care needs to be taken in deciding what -- if any -- process control
facilities need to be provided to CLIM applications, else the portability of
CLIM applications may be seriously compromised.


Main Index | Thread Index