RE: MCL Framework & Directions

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

Jeffrey,
 
>>If MCL's main purpose is to generate "shrink wrapped" commercial
applications,
>>then it needs a framework with at least the capabilities of MacApp and
>>eventually Bedrock.

I'm glad to see that someone else in the Lisp community recognizes the need for
an application framework for MCL that is as complete as Bedrock. 

I believe that MCL also needs to provide a more robust foreign function
interface as well as an application framework that is common to MCL and C++.

This would allow the development of hybrid MCL<->C++ programs where MCL code
could be integrated with existing C++ code and C++ code developed by other
programming team members who prefer not to use MCL. 

>My personal opinion is that "hardware resource" issues will soon
>disappear, and that the real issue, lack of a comprehensive class library with
>access to modern Macintosh features, will  soon dominate. In my opinion MCL
>(and Dylan for that matter) without such a library will never expand beyond
>niche markets.
 
I agree. I also think encouraging hybrid programming with a common framework
would speed the acceptance of using LISP for development.

-Jonathan