RE: RE: RE: MCL Application Framework

["pierce" <pierce@at-mail-server.vitro.com>]

>>Sounds like 1 year until a Mac/windows version IF the project isn't killed
>>by corporate merger/lawsuits and they keep to schedule

The Bedrock project is unlikely to be killed since it represents a vital piece
of Apple's software strategy.

>>The advantage of CLIM is that it is LISP specific where Bedrock is not.

The reality is that LISP will not be a popular option for delivering commercial
quality applications given the memory and speed limitations of current
hardware.

Developers who wish to gain from the development productivity of LISP should
still be able to port their applications to C for delivery without having to
port their application framework.

>>The only thing that Bedrock appears to have over CLIM is
internationalization.

Bedrock also contains a Virtual Memory Manager and a File Manager as well as
who knows what else.  

The Virtual Memory Manager allocates and manages memory, provides compaction,
reallocation, and page swapping capabilities.

The File Manager provides access to the file system including network access
and name handling from partial specifications.

Bedrock is likely to be a much more complete application framework than
anything developed by the CL community given the amount of resources of Apple
and Symantec as compared to the CL community.

>>Its easier to add to CLIM than it is to make C++ & Bedrock as good as
>>CL+CLIM. 

Designing a LISP interface to Bedrock is not an easy job, but will result in a
more complete and language portable application framework.

Building a LISP interface to Bedrock would not be duplicate the efforts of
Apple and Symantec in developing the best application development framework
available on any of the host platforms.  

It would also serve to increase the size of the LISP community by making LISP a
more attractive development environment that does not lock the developer into
delivering in LISP.

-Jonathan