Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsz!mayer
From: mayer@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Niels Mayer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: X bindings in Scheme?
Message-ID: <4803@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 9 Feb 90 03:07:10 GMT
References: <2891@draken.nada.kth.se>
Reply-To: mayer@hplabs.hp.com (Niels Mayer)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Software Technology Lab, Palo Alto, CA.
Lines: 23
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <2891@draken.nada.kth.se> huss@nada.kth.se (H}kan Huss) writes:
>rather easy. Some systems also provide interfaces to the toolkit
>layers of X. In our opinion, however, the main question is not
>the feasibility, but rather the desirability of this approach. We
>believe that the C interface is not suited for direct use from Scheme.

I agree that the xlib layer is too low-level for lisp programming ...
that's why I like my UI components implemented in C.  I've found
WINTERP to be plenty fast -- As long as I'm not forcing XLISP to
perform lots of grinding and garbage generating operations. THose
should be written in C. I may prototype low level routines in XLISP,
but the ones that matter end up in C. IMHO, hybrid programming is the
way to go.

So H}kan, are saying that the compiling scheme system is fast enough?
I guess I need to read Bartlett's paper...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	    Niels Mayer -- hplabs!mayer -- mayer@hplabs.hp.com
		  Human-Computer Interaction Department
		       Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
			      Palo Alto, CA.
				   *