CLIM mail archive
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
CLIM 2.0 -- How portable is it?
I have been converting our code from ACL CLIM 1.1 to ACL CLIM 2.0 and a few
questions have arisen. Perhaps the problem is that I have the Symbolics
documentation for CLIM 2.0 which we use to supplement the documentation from
Franz. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. ;-) Both vendors did a
good job with the documentation. Having more than one source of information
just makes it easier to resolve programming problems.
My concern is that I have noticed several cases where ACL CLIM 2.0 differs
from Symbolics CLIM 2.0 on its treatment of some fairly basic functions
(e.g. open-window-stream and define-application-frame). I wondered if
anyone out there had any experience with CLIM 2.0 from more than one vendor.
Is code easily portable from one vendor's CLIM to another? Does it require
minor adjustment? Major adjustment? Are the required adjustments on "lower
level" or less frequently used methods/functions or are they on common
methods/functions? Would you characterize CLIM 2.0 as being
better|worse|equal to the portability of CLIM 1.1 between different vendors?
Another valid question is, am I borrowing trouble by worrying about this?
The red flag went up for me when I noticed differences in what I considered
the most basic level of CLIM 2.0. We occassionally pick up software from
other users that is not necessarily developed on ACL CLIM. The portability
of CLIM is one of its major selling points for me. Please let me know what
your experiences have been with CLIM 2.0, especially anyone who can give me
perspectives from other vendors.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Marilyn
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Bunzo NASA Ames Research Center
msb@eos.arc.nasa.gov Mailstop 269-6
Sterling Software Bldg. 269 Room 152
(415) 604-0426 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Follow-Ups:
Main Index |
Thread Index