CLIM 2.0 -- How portable is it?

• To: msb@eos.arc.nasa.gov
• Subject: CLIM 2.0 -- How portable is it?
• From: Scott McKay <swm@harlequin.com>
• Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 11:35:42 EDT
• Cc: clim@BBN.COM
• In-Reply-To: "Marilyn S. Bunzo"'s message of Thu, 23 Jun 1994 16:59:09 -0700 <199406232359.QAA18122@eos.arc.nasa.gov>

   Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 16:59:09 -0700
   From: "Marilyn S. Bunzo" <msb@eos.arc.nasa.gov>

   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?

CLIM 2.0 will work the same way on Symbolics, Lucid, Harlqn, and under
MCL (if that ever comes out).  For stupid reasons, Franz is the odd
man out, although that certainly does not imply that Franz is in the
wrong in cases where it differs from the S/L/H/M version.  It would be
helpful if you could send reports of any such incompatibilities (to
this mailing list, I guess) when you find them.

   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

• CLIM 2.0 -- How portable is it?
• From: "Marilyn S. Bunzo" <msb@eos.arc.nasa.gov>

• Prev: Passing user-defined arguments to presentation methods
• Next: CLIM 1.1 erase-output-record ?
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Jun-94 to 30-Jun-95)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Jun-94 to 30-Jun-95)