[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MCL 2.1
- To: Nick Wilde <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: MCL 2.1
- From: moon (David A. Moon)
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 11:27:58 EDT
- Cc: email@example.com
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 21:13:00 -0600
> From: Nick Wilde <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> In article <9204272110.AA27906@cambridge.apple.com> you write:
> >C of course having a user interface standard that works on Macs, Windows, Unix, OS/2,
> >VMS, OS/400, etc.
> >Sorry, I really don't mean to belittle your point, which I agree with completely, but I
> >always bristle when I see a double standard being applied where Lisp has to clear hurdles
> >that are not presented to other languages.
> Well, you can work in XVT if you want - a C based set of librarys that
> allow you to write the same code (yes, GUI stuff as well), and run it
> on a Mac, X-Windows, OS/2, Windows, and even character based terminals.
> So, the hurdle is being cleared in other languages.
Good point. It might be interesting to compare XVT and CLIM on such dimensions
as quality, cost, ease of learning, standardness, support, etc., and also to see
about making XVT available in Lisp. Operating systems aren't language specific
so why should user interface management systems be?
"The truth is rarely pure and
never simple" - Oscar Wilde