[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mother ship App. (distributing FASL files)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, cfry@MIT.EDU, ranson@LANNION.cnet.fr
- Subject: Re: Mother ship App. (distributing FASL files)
- From: email@example.com
- Date: 19 Jan 1993 14:20:11 -0600
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Turning MCL into a multi-applications environment will probably
> require more thoughts, and a much longer liist of conventions.
Well, bluntly, I don't know if anyone really wanted an 'applications
environment' when they bought MCL. And, clearly, no Macintosh programmer
is looking for yet another list of conventions. As promised, MCL
does infact make stand alone applications, even though they're too big
to be of any use to anyone, but making it into a runtime environment
is simply avoiding the issue entirely. The fact is, MCL makes B I G
CLUMSY and BUGGY applications--a review of this mailing list will give
you all the evidence you need. It's evident that people are constantly
working on the buggy aspects, but it's also very clear that nothing is
being done about the B I G and CLUMSY 'feature'. And, clearly this
has been a problem for a long time: here's an exerpt from an article
published by Andrew Shalit in the APDAlog of Spring 1989, He writes:
Allegro [yes, this is back when MCL was called Allegro] can
produce stand-alone applications. However, they are currently
quite large (smallest size is about 700K). Getting smaller
applications (comparable to applications written in other
languages) is one of the priorities for future versions of Allegro.
- Andrew Shalit (1989, spring). "Tools of the Trade: Macintosh
Allegro Common LISP". in APDAlog: Spring 1989. CA: Apple Computer Inc.
May I remind the MCL development team that this quote is from
an Apple publication that that Andrew Shalit was an Apple employee
at the time of it's publication.
Since 1984 things appear to have proceeded in the opposite
direction. Nowadays the smallest program I can make is twice
the size of the smallest program that could be made 4 years
ago--and 4 years ago people thought it was a problem!
This is ridiculous, it's quite evident that size has not been a
priority, and it never was a priority.
ps: just incase someone comes back saying 'but Allegro isn't MCL' I
have the following quote from the February 1992 APDAlog:
"Macintosh Common Lisp v.1.3.2, formerly known as Macintosh
Allegro Common Lisp v.1.3.2, is based on the specification..."
- Apple Computer Inc. (1992, February). APDAlog. CA: Author. (p. 36).
which clearly implies MCL is infact the same software product/project
under a different name.