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

RE: MCL Application Framework

> MCL Application Framework

>>1.2.  MCL and MacApp (and TCL) are different beasts.  Whilst it is
>>superficially very tempting to just try and `port MacApp' into MCL, in
>>practice what is needed is functional equivalence within the existing MCL
>>environment, not a straight translation into Common Lisp.
>>1.3.  The logical approach to constructing this application framework is to
>>study the features of the MacApp and other class libraries, and to identify
>>areas in which MCL can be enhanced and enriched to the benefit of those using
>>it.  To these should be added other areas which are either of particular
>>importance to the MCL environment, or which are useful features which are
also >>absent from these other class libraries.

It would be desireable for the MCL Application Framework to be a true superset
of MacAPP or some other chosen interface class library.  MCL users could then
write interface intensive code in MCL that could be ported to other languages
for delivery.  MCL users who were not interseted in portability to other
languages could still benefit from MCL specific class library extensions.

This is important not only for portability to other languages, but for
portability to other machines.  Interface libraries already exist that are
portable across machines and MacAPP is likely to follow.  MCL users could
benefit from this portability by using the portable subset supported by the MCL
application framework and translating their Lisp to other languages for

Perhaps the following Aim should be added:

2.6 To provide a LISP version of an existing Application Framework to allow
developers to benefit from the productive MCL development environment and still
deliver with the memory and speed efficiency and portability provided by other