Subject: Re: application architecture for UI (Ex: Re: Is LISP dying?) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1999/07/24 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * firstname.lastname@example.org (Rainer Joswig) | But, this is *exactly* the point of CLIM. That's the big difference | between CLIM and ***all*** the other UIMS out there. It has the | presentation system. I think we all understand this, but if you think CLIM is sufficient to describe the abstract protocol, why do you need the CLIM _implementation_ of that abstract protocol to use CLIM? the published interface to CLIM is out there. as with many small applications, you can probably "fake" the underlying framework. I'll be mean and say if CLIM is so good, how come people don't use it for their design and abstract work? back when I couldn't use Lisp for some projects, I still wrote most of the code in Lisp and played with several ideas and then hand-translated it to C. I have done the same thing with assembler, actually. low-level languages like assembler and C are very hard to sit down and chat with the system, and almost _require_ the "traditional" design phases, whereas Lisp lets me think in code on screen. if CLIM offers that kind of service to its programmers, it should survive and thrive independent of actual source code or implementations. it appears to me that it doesn't. #:Erik -- suppose we blasted all politicians into space. would the SETI project find even one of them?