[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Slightly Disappointing Review of MCL 2.0 in October MacWorld :-(

> 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? ;-)
> MacWorld:
>   "PROS: Includes easily extensible EMACS-like editor; includes good sample
>   code; compatible with CLOS; excellent documentation in manuals and on
>   CD-ROM.
>   CONS: Limited interface construction tool does not include CLIM."

I figured four stars based on the reviewer's "concern" over an interface
builder.  All I've ever used are fairly simple interface builders because I like
and usually need the extra control you get from directly coding the interface. 
(maybe a relly good interface builder would change this.)

> I'm not sure what product Peter Wayner is reviewing ;-). Is it
> really MCL? Sure he missed most of real strengths of MCL.
> Some are (IMHO): Access to the Macintosh Toolbox, ease of usage,
> extensibilty, quality of implementation, stability of the environment,
> excellent support through newsgroup and email from Apple and the
> user community, code provided by users, a lot of the Common Lisp AI
> software is running on MCL, ephemeral garbage collection, ...

RE: extensibility

I _always_ either define or use my own pre-defined dialog items.  I'm usually
doing a certain kind of interface that requires minorly different dialog items. 
Once I've defined them though, if I want to add them to the interface buidler I
can.  Also, my time is not spent on things the interface builder would really
help me save time on (placing items that is). Most of my time is on rewriting
dialog items to work the way I need them to.  That sort of interface builder
would be nice.

> And he sure missed some of the weak points of MCL...

Complete color support.  :-)

> Maybe I should write a letter to MACWORLD1@applelink.apple.com and
> ask for a corrected rating. ;-)

I noticed that Think C 5.0 got 4 stars and ObjectPascal or something like that
got 5.  ObjectPascal's "mini-review" in the same issue gave as the main reason
for it's 5 was a highly integrated environment, great debugger, etc.

That's it! They mixed the ObjectPascal and MCL reviews up a little!!


Tod Casasent                       == "Second from the right and straight on
casasent@optlab2.bk.tsukuba.ac.jp  ==  'til morning." - Peter Pan