[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Slightly Disappointing Review of MCL 2.0 in Oct MacWorld
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Rainer Joswig)
- Subject: Re: Slightly Disappointing Review of MCL 2.0 in Oct MacWorld
- From: email@example.com (Doug Currie, Flavors Technology, Inc.)
- Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 10:54:01 -0500
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, MacWorld1@applelink.apple.com
At 8:41 AM 93.10.06 +0100, Rainer Joswig wrote:
>in the latest MacWorld is a half page review of MCL 2.0. MCL got three stars
>out of five. This is extremely unfair. Wouldn't most of the MCL users agree
>that five stars would be correct? ;-)
I agree with you (at least 4.5 stars!); I had the same reaction to the
MacWorld article. It struck me that the reviewer didn't realize that Common
LISP in itself is an extremely big and powerful language, and that Apple
has done a superb job implementing it. LISP implementations on other PCs
are riddled with flaws; I consider MCL a "no compromise" implementation.
Further, Apple has implemented excellent tools and libraries to build an
unparalleled development environment, and a complete interface to the
native Mac OS and toolbox.
My reaction was tempered by the reviewer's mention of CLIM and interface
tools, areas where MCL has fallen behind a bit. But your note renewed my
feelings of overall disappointment in the review. MCL has enormous
strengths not addressed in the article. MCL also has some weaknesses that,
had they been addressed, may have given Apple more incentive. In these
times of budget cuts and product transitions I believe Apple needs
encouragement to increase support for MCL internally. MCL deserves a better
review from MacWorld.
I am copying this message to MacWorld editors (AppleLink: MacWorld1,
Compuserve: 70370,702, FAX: 415/442-0766). Join me in supporting MCL.