[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re2: App Framework - Stance 1
- To: KLEIMAN@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Kleiman, Ruben), OODL.SIG$@AppleLink.Apple.COM (OODL SIG group address), OODL-SIG-IN@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM
- Subject: Re2: App Framework - Stance 1
- From: UK0392@AppleLink.Apple.COM (EHN & DIJ Oakley,BDV)
- Date: 29 Jun 92 17:19 GMT
- Cc: INFO-MCL@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM
"I don't understand how CLIM will really help with portability in the larger
I agree. This is something which the CLIM implementors need to address, IMHO,
as they have from the outset aimed at a portable GUI system, which I thought
also included implementations of Common Lisp running on machines with X.
My main point from Stance 1 is that the work which we are starting under OODL
SIG will primarily address the needs of those happy to develop for the Mac
alone, using MCL 2.0 et seq., and wanting to produce shrink-wrapped
applications. As I have today sent off my licence application to be able to
ship three MCL 2.0 applications (an appropriate moment for a little nudge in
the direction of those who are presumably working hard to get 2.0 final
shipped?), I for one have a vested interest!
I would also beg that - whilst I am by no means uninterested in portable
application frameworks - we can progress this limited app framework discussion
aside from further consideration of cross-platform frameworks. Until we know a
bit more about Bedrock (a new thread arising now being what of Bedrock and
Pink?!), and the CLIM folk have had a chance to see whether it has any spinoffs
for them, all that we can do is wish and speculate.