[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: App Framework - Stance 1
- To: UK0392@AppleLink.Apple.COM (EHN & DIJ Oakley,BDV), OODL.SIG$@AppleLink.Apple.COM (OODL SIG group address), OODL-SIG-IN@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM
- Subject: Re: App Framework - Stance 1
- From: KLEIMAN@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Kleiman, Ruben)
- Date: 29 Jun 92 16:36 GMT
- Cc: INFO-MCL@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM, CHIPKIN@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Chipkin, Adam), HERNAN@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Epelman-Wang, Hernan), ICEMAN@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Vronay, David), IN.12673@AppleLink.Apple.COM (MLMILLER@GOOFY.APPLE.COM@INTERNET#), SPOHRER@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Spohrer, James C)
UK0392> 2. Some folk are clearly most concerned about cross-platform
UK0392> portability, and I think that the two possible paths then open
UK0392> are:
UK0392> a. CLIM - support for CLIM form MCL is clearly very
UK0392> important. I hope that both CLIM vendors and MCL policy
UK0392> determiners are hoisting in that there *is* real demand for
UK0392> this, and that many people in the MCL community would like the
UK0392> bond to grow firmer, to the extent of a formal announcement and
UK0392> formal support.
I don't understand how CLIM will really help with portability in the larger
sense. Isn't CLIM a standard adopted for Lisp only (Common Lisp Interface
Manager)? Meanwhile, looming larger is X-windows and its derivatives. So, if we
had to implement one or the other, wouldn't we opt for X-windows? (Please
understand that I am not a fan of either CLIM nor X-windows.)
Regards,
Ruben Kleiman