Re:No More Object Lisp

[hughes@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Lucian Hughes)]

Here is an excerpt from a recent posting of Bill St.Clair's in response
to following question:
>   
>   Does the system and window interface implementation now use CLOS rather
>   than (or as well as) ObjectLisp?
>   
>Everything is converted to CLOS.  ObjectLisp is no more.
>
>Bill St. Clair
>bill@cambridge.apple.com
>

I suppose I'm doomed in this but I want to enter one last plea
that some conversion functions or some sort of support (perhaps
on top of clos) be given for object lisp. I have a VERY large
program built on top of it and I want to be able to use 2.0.
Do other people feel this need? I assume so since considerable
interface work has likely been done with object lisp.
  HOW ABOUT THOSE WHO AGREE LETTING APPLE KNOW, perhaps if
there is sufficient concern it will be seen as a legitimate
need.
  One final comment, the reason I stuck with object lisp instead
of PCL is that a long while ago when plans to upgrade to CLOS
were announced it was said that object lisp would likely be
supported on top of CLOS. The recommendation was that if  you needed
speed in the short term (e.g., me) stick with object lisp rather
than going immediately to aPCL version of CLOS on top of the then
current lisp which would be slower.  It was pointed out that in 
the long term the cost would be that object lisp would become
slower than the full implementation of CLOS.  I chose the first
route for speed figuring I could accept the slower running later
of object lisp because I would presumably have a faster hardware
platform by then.  Now I find I have, so to speak, no software
leg to stand on.
    BTW, is there a strong reason why such conversion code or
support cannot be provided, does it turn out to be extremely
hard to do?

       Lucian