[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
vote (sorry for the first)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: vote (sorry for the first)
- From: Marc Domenig <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 11:05:33 +0200
- Conversion: Prohibited
- X400-content-type: P2-1984 (2)
- X400-mts-identifier: [/PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/;920701110533]
- X400-originator: firstname.lastname@example.org
- X400-received: by mta chx400.switch.ch in /PRMD=switch/ADMD=arcom/C=CH/; Relayed; Wed, 1 Jul 1992 11:07:55 +0200
- X400-received: by /PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/; Relayed; Wed, 1 Jul 1992 11:05:33 +0200
- X400-recipients: email@example.com
John Lewis wrote:
>1. (Mac vs. cross platform). CLIM already exists and addresses the
> cross-platform community. I vote for a more mac-centric application
> framework which should be suitable for 'commercial' quality applications.
>2. (CLIM/Dylan/Bedrock/...). A vote for 'roll our own', and port it to
> Dylan when available. (The designers of the app framework should
> decide whether or not CLIM is suitable for an industrial quality
>3. (Other OS). The operating system/platform competition has never been
> more open than it is now; I'm waiting before deciding.
> I hope Apple makes available a quasi public domain Dylan for porting
> purposes. I would like to see Dylan on some Unix machines.
I agree with John Lewis in many respects:
a more mac-centric framework could be developed quickly. A cross-platform
thing would mean that a lot of effort would have to be put into
compatibility issues and the merging of different "philosophies" which
don't really match very well. Moreover, John's argument about the
OS system/platform competition (more open than ever) is valid for
the framework question as well. Therefore, I vote for a clean
but powerful framework suitable for 'commercial' quality applications.
A further point: concentrating on the Mac would allow the development
team to focus on areas where
1) the Mac has either great advantages over other systems (which would
create difficulties for a cross-platform framework because of the
'least common denominator' problem), and
2) MCL (and the Mac) have weaknesses in comparison to other systems,
e.g. in high-level support for multitasking, networking, RPC etc.