Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!daemon
From: miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: LISP compiler? (really future of MACL)
Message-ID: <1989Nov13.183010.28625@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 89 18:30:10 GMT
Sender: daemon@cs.rochester.edu (Old Scratch)
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department
Lines: 23

[Protect me from mailer bugs!]

    Date: 10 Nov 89 17:45:10 GMT
    From: chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively)

    We certainly agree about CLOS.  CLIM may or may not be offered as an 
    option for the system.  It's not a priority for us, as we already have a 
    user environment that we'd like to keep consistent, and which is, in our 
    collective opinions, in many ways better than CLIM.

I'd like to hear more about this; 

1) I don't understand in what ways it is better than CLIM

2) I thought the point of CLIM was to make UI code portable across
environments; thus stuff I develop (say) on my Symbolics I can get to run
pretty much identically on the Mac. Not supporting CLIM (or some generic
standardized interface manager; you may have specific quibbles with CLIM in
particular) hinders this.

Seems like CLIM is still in the early stages, so the strategy might be to
get what "advantages" you see in your system into CLIM rather than be on
your own....