Re: The cost of CLIM and its future

• To: welch@cis.ohio-state.edu
• Subject: Re: The cost of CLIM and its future
• From: "Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgm@iexist.att.com>
• Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 20:20-0500
• Cc: clim@BBN.COM
• In-Reply-To: <9209171726.AA00281@sacral.cis.ohio-state.edu>

    Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 12:26 CDT
    From: Arun Welch <welch@cis.ohio-state.edu>

    > I know we can't expect sympathy, but can we get suggestions?  Can you
    > suggest something on the market which addresses the Symbolics -> MCL
    > -> Lucid -> Franz -> Harlequin portability issue?  

    In the current state, it's locked into those 5 companies. What about -> Ibuki
    -> Gold Hill -> Top Level  -> Venue -> etc. *That's* my point. It's effectively
    raised the entry point into the Lisp market by a couple of manyears of effort.

How are CL vendors beyond the Five locked out of CLIM?  Do the Five
charge too much for a source license?  Does it contain too much
platform-specific code?  Does it require too much platform-specific
optimization for acceptable performance?  Or is it simply too big for a
smaller CL vendor to support?  I'd like to understand this issue better
because I agree that to be a genuine "de facto standard," CLIM should be
a workable option for the smaller CL vendors as well as the larger ones.
At LUV '92, even Sapiens Software (of $99 Star Sapphire CL fame) was
interested in offering CLIM, but I don't know whether the Five responded
welcomingly or not.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.

0,,

• Re: The cost of CLIM and its future
• From: Scott McKay <SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>

• Re: The cost of CLIM and its future
• From: Arun Welch <welch@cis.ohio-state.edu>

• Prev: Re: The cost of CLIM and its future
• Next: PS
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Sep-92 to 31-Dec-92)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Sep-92 to 31-Dec-92)