CLIM mail archive
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Using Processes in CLIM
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 12:58:48 PST
> From: Jon L White <jonl%kuwait@lucid.com>
>
> 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
model.
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.
0,,
Follow-Ups:
Main Index |
Thread Index