[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: App Framework - Stance 1
- To: KLEIMAN@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Kleiman, Ruben)
- Subject: Re: App Framework - Stance 1
- From: moon (David A. Moon)
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 15:31:01 EDT
- Cc: UK0392@AppleLink.Apple.COM (EHN & DIJ Oakley,BDV), OODL.SIG$@AppleLink.Apple.COM (OODL SIG group address), OODL-SIG-IN@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM, 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)
> Date: 29 Jun 92 16:36 GMT
> From: KLEIMAN@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Kleiman, Ruben)
>
> 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.)
CLIM exists only on top of Lisp, so it doesn't address cross-language
portability. However, it's wrong to contrast CLIM and X-Windows; they address
completely different levels of the user interface question, and on platforms with
X-Windows CLIM uses X-Windows, just as on Macintoshes CLIM uses the Mac toolbox
to provide windows, dialogs, and menus.
I also don't see any advantage to implementing X-Windows on the Mac, other than
communication with other non-Mac platforms, since X-Windows just duplicates
functionality that is already present on the Mac. By the way, X-Windows is
already implemented on the Mac, so that's not something the OODL community needs
to invest in anyway.