[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: MCL Application Framework
- To: cfry@MIT.EDU (Christopher Fry)
- Subject: Re: RE: MCL Application Framework
- From: moon (David A. Moon)
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 07:18:24 -700
- Cc: "pierce" <email@example.com>, Info-MCL@cambridge.apple.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 92 14:26:20 EST
> From: cfry@MIT.EDU (Christopher Fry)
> CLIM is now supported on many machines. Support for it on the Mac is
> comming from ILA. CLIM was designed with CLOS as an integral part by people intimately
> familiar with Lisp-based window systems [which have a much longer history than C-based
> window systems]. Without knowing more details on BEDROCK, my guess is that CLIM is closer
> to the right thing for CL environments than BEDROCK.
I haven't looked at the technical details, but my somewhat ill-informed opinion is that
although Bedrock and CLIM have some overlap, each also does a lot that the other doesn't do.
You can also bet the farm that Bedrock will receive a lot more development and support
resources than CLIM, more than just the extra resources required to compensate for the
disadvantages of doing it in C++. I'd like to see the Lisp community get some benefit from
all that expenditure.
This suggests to me that a good strategy would be for CLIM 3.0 to be based on Bedrock; that
is, for the overlapping part of CLIM (probably a little less than half) to be removed and
replaced with Bedrock, and CLIM to concentrate on its unique advantages. In the long term I
think this would be better for everybody.