[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Common Lisp window standards
- To: Info-MCL@cambridge.apple.com, SWM@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: RE: Common Lisp window standards
- From: "pierce" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 7 Jul 92 10:22:45 U
David Moon writes:
>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
As one of the main CLIM designers and implementors,
Could you please comment on this strategy?