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

RE:App Framework - Stance 1


I'll support your statement.  I would like to comment on:

>5.  That Apple's resources are better devoted to improving MCL and launching
>Dylan, and that Apple is happy for members of OODL SIG to work on this
>application framework (without making our efforts redundant too quickly!)?

(WARNING:  Climbing on bigger soapbox than usual):
I know this is really for Apple but I'd like to throw in my two cents anyway.
As of today, I'd agree with #5 but, then again, it really doesn't matter for 
two reasons:  I don't really know what Apple is going to do with MCL nor do I 
have any control over what they do with their resources.  The latter is fine 
since its their bus and they can drive it however and whereever they want.  
The former is not fine because I must make strategic and technical decisions 
based on what I know from Apple on where and how to guide my little burro.

Let me qualify this statement.  Harvey Alcabes has stated what stuff will be 
in the 2.0 release which is good.  Steve Strassmann and David Moon have added 
very pertinent insights about application frameworks from an Apple point of 
view and I appreciate their input.  I'm glad to hear that there Apple is 
talking about this issue amongst themselves even though I don't expect an 
"official statement of direction" from them.  With the amount of time that it 
has taken to produce a release version, I can understand that the MCL 
development team probably has enough to keep them busy for quite a while 
without also trying to develop a application framework.  I applaud the OODL 
SIG (Howard, et al) for sensing this and committing to provide this facility 
which is crucial to the growth of MCL in the Mac developer community.  I feel 
that there are many VERY interested Mac developers waiting and watching to see
what Apple does with MCL and Dylan.  My opinion is that the person (a Mac 
developer) trying to get MCL into an organization will, however, have a very 
hard time trying to "sell" this technology without Apple's stamp on the 
application framework.  I don't believe that companies will buy into MCL 
unless Apple first shows their committment to it.  Let's face it, people 
trying to justify MCL in their organizations for mainstream applications are 
going to have a hard enough time with the name "Lisp."  Old time Lispers may 
get a chuckle out of this but it's true.  I used to have the same problems 
trying to justify MacApp as something other than "bleeding edge" technology.  
Without Apple's commitment in the past to MacApp (never mind what's happened 
to it with Bedrock), those early MacApp projects that I worked on would have 
never been funded.

I don't want the folks on the MCL development team to take this as a personal 
attack.  They may not have any more say in their budget than me.  I'm really 
gearing this to the folks at Apple who make the objectives/strategies and 
provide the budgets.  They have to potential to have something really special 
on their hands if they show the necessary leadership required to cultivate 
their developer community as they have in the past.

Time to climb down off the soapbox.

Dave Lucky