CLIM and GUI builders
Matt Kressel
What are some advantages over using CLIM for
an interface over some other options? I have a common
LISP "kernel" that I want to add an interface for. Originally
the GUI was done with ACTION on Macintosh Common LISP, but now
we need a portable GUI to run on PCs as well as UNIX. Is
CLIM the right answer?
Thanks for any suggesstions,
Matt
--
Matthew O. Kressel | INTERNET: Matthew...@atdc.northgrum.com
+--------- Northrop Grumman Corporation, Bethpage, NY ---------+
+--------- TEL: (516) 346-9101 FAX: (516) 346-9740 ------------+
Mike McDonald
Matt Kressel <Matthew...@atdc.northgrum.com> writes:
> Hello,
> What are some advantages over using CLIM for
> an interface over some other options? I have a common
> LISP "kernel" that I want to add an interface for. Originally
> the GUI was done with ACTION on Macintosh Common LISP, but now
> we need a portable GUI to run on PCs as well as UNIX. Is
> CLIM the right answer?
>
> Thanks for any suggesstions,
> Matt
>
Are you using commercial implementations of CL on Unix? If so, CLIM is
probably fine, although a bit pricey. Unfortunately, there doesn't currently
exist a PD version of CLIM, nor a consences as to what to use in its place.
Some like Garnet but it uses its own OO language instead of CLOS. There's the
CLUE stuff (Xt type stuff in CLOS) but it's kind of rough. There's CLM, which
interfaces to Motif via FFI.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Matt Kressel
>
> Are you using commercial implementations of CL on Unix? If so, CLIM is
> probably fine, although a bit pricey. Unfortunately, there doesn't currently
> exist a PD version of CLIM, nor a consences as to what to use in its place.
> Some like Garnet but it uses its own OO language instead of CLOS. There's the
> CLUE stuff (Xt type stuff in CLOS) but it's kind of rough. There's CLM, which
> interfaces to Motif via FFI.
I'd rather not use any specific OS code (i.e. Motif or Xt). I know they
have Motif and others for Windows, but I would still have to use the FFI.
Rather, I would like to use only LISP code and compile on Windows NT as well
as other
UNIXes like HPUX, IRIX, and possibly SunOS without foreign calls. I know CLIM
compiles on all of these under Allegro. I was wondering if there are other,
perhaps better and more portable GUI development tools?
I would like to stray away from using any FFI calls, due to the non
portability of the way the foreign functions are loaded and called. Also,
CLIM is supported on the Mac, but not under Allegro so portablity is
the biggest issue. Second is ease of programming. Price is (for
the moment) irrelevant.
Thanks again,
-Matt
Rainer Joswig
<Matthew...@atdc.northgrum.com> wrote:
> I would like to stray away from using any FFI calls, due to the non
> portability of the way the foreign functions are loaded and called. Also,
> CLIM is supported on the Mac, but not under Allegro so portablity is
> the biggest issue. Second is ease of programming. Price is (for
> the moment) irrelevant.
CLIM 2 runs on LispWorks (Windows and X),
MCL (soon), ACL (Windows and X), LCL (X)
and Genera (Lispm, X, Mac).
So portability in theory is o.k. (minus the quality of implementations).
Ease of programming? Well, you have to learn a new
User Interface Management System.
Jason Trenouth
<Matthew...@atdc.northgrum.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> What are some advantages over using CLIM for
> an interface over some other options? I have a common
> LISP "kernel" that I want to add an interface for. Originally
> the GUI was done with ACTION on Macintosh Common LISP, but now
> we need a portable GUI to run on PCs as well as UNIX. Is
> CLIM the right answer?
>
> Thanks for any suggesstions,
> Matt
LispWorks comes bundled with the CLOS-based CAPI UI toolkit that provides
portable native-look-and-feel GUIs across Windows and Unix. Contact:
lispwor...@harlequin.com.
__Jason
Marco Antoniotti
(|with "also Harlequin deserves some bashing every once in a while" mode on|
"Can I run a CAPI application on ACL Common Windows?")
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - (0)6 - 68 10 03 16, fax. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it
Jason Trenouth
<mar...@galvani.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote:
> ja...@harlequin.com (Jason Trenouth) writes:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:14:41 GMT, Matt Kressel
> > <Matthew...@atdc.northgrum.com> wrote:
> >
> > LispWorks comes bundled with the CLOS-based CAPI UI toolkit that provides
> > portable native-look-and-feel GUIs across Windows and Unix. Contact:
> > lispwor...@harlequin.com.
>
> (|with "also Harlequin deserves some bashing every once in a while" mode on|
> "Can I run a CAPI application on ACL Common Windows?")
The question is do you want to? Or more widely: how many people listening here
would want that? I should stress that, at this point, the question is my own
and not Harlequin's.
__Jason
Martti Halminen
> > > LispWorks comes bundled with the CLOS-based CAPI UI toolkit that provides
> > > portable native-look-and-feel GUIs across Windows and Unix. Contact:
> > > lispwor...@harlequin.com.
> >
> > (|with "also Harlequin deserves some bashing every once in a while" mode on|
> > "Can I run a CAPI application on ACL Common Windows?")
>
> The question is do you want to? Or more widely: how many people listening here
> would want that? I should stress that, at this point, the question is my own
> and not Harlequin's.
What is needed is some portable way of creating GUIs. I don't care
whether it is Franz' or Harlequin's stuff, or some other system, as long
as people can use it on either implementation; CMU-CL and other free
lisps would also be nice to be included :-)
--
________________________________________________________________
^. Martti Halminen
/ \`. Design Power Europe Oy
/ \ `. Tekniikantie 12, FIN-02150 Espoo, Finland
/\`. \ | Tel:+358 9 4354 2306, Fax:+358 9 455 8575
/__\|___\| Mailto:Martti....@dpe.fi http://www.dpe.fi
Peter Lucas
>Jason Trenouth wrote:
>
>> The question is do you want to? Or more widely: how many people listening here
>> would want that? I should stress that, at this point, the question is my own
>> and not Harlequin's.
>
>What is needed is some portable way of creating GUIs. I don't care
>whether it is Franz' or Harlequin's stuff, or some other system, as long
>as people can use it on either implementation; CMU-CL and other free
>lisps would also be nice to be included :-)
We are using CLIM 2.1 with Allegro CL both on Windows 95 and Unix
machines. We develop on Unix, and the basic idea is that porting
to Windows 95 should be painless. However, Franz seems to be more
enthousiastic about their Common Graphics Tools kit for Windows than
about CLIM for Windows, and, as a consequence, the quality of CLIM
for Windows has been lagging behind. Common Graphics is not available
for Unix. Actually, the sales persons of Franz did not even knew that
Common Graphics does not run on Unix/X.
Personally, I think this is a sad story, because CL is probably one
of the best portable languages around. We are using here a number
of systems that have been developed on Symbolics, and there were
usually few or no problems getting them running on other of CL systems.
So, it certainly would be a good idea to try to maintain these advantages
with respect to GUI tools. It implies giving up some of the
advantages offers by specific window systems, but that seems worth
the price.
Relevant questions are: will Franz work further on CLIM, will it improve
the quality of the implementation for Windows, and will CLIM be available
for Linux. It doesn't seem unlikely that the Unix people at Franz have
ACL for Linux running with CLIM.
Peter
--
--
Peter Lucas
Dept. of Computer Science, Utrecht University
Padualaan 14, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands
Mike McDonald
lu...@cs.uu.nl (Peter Lucas) writes:
> Relevant questions are: will Franz work further on CLIM, will it improve
> the quality of the implementation for Windows, and will CLIM be available
> for Linux. It doesn't seem unlikely that the Unix people at Franz have
> ACL for Linux running with CLIM.
>
> Peter
CLIM is available for ACL5.0 on Linux. The combo of the two runs something
like $4200 if I remember correctly.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Matt Kressel
>
>
> The question is do you want to? Or more widely: how many people listening here
> would want that? I should stress that, at this point, the question is my own
> and not Harlequin's.
>
I would like to have a "static" source tree that would compile directly with
many versions of LISP compilers on may different platforms. This LISP code
would
have a GUI interface written in some portable language so that moving from
one architecture to another is simple.
The "kernel" I spoke about has already been ported from MCL for 68k to ACL
on x86 and MCL on PowerPC (601). I would like to be able to do this as well
with the GUI. CLIM *seems* like the right choice, but I was wondering if
anyone
knows of a better one, or a better implementation of CLIM. Since I am already
working with ACL, it seems logical to continue to use them, but I am very open
to suggestions at this point.
Thanks again for all your replies,
Kent M Pitman
> What is needed is some portable way of creating GUIs.
As opposed to "some way of creating portable GUIs"? i.e., if the tool
is interactive and the resulting code ports, why does it matter if the
tool ports? I'm not being contentious here, just trying to understand
clearly what your need is.
If one vendor offers one interface and another offers another, is that
enough? The X3J13 committee shied away from forcing vendors to
conform "environmentwise" to a standard, assuming streamlined
environments were something upon which vendors can and should
legitimately compete. Of course, you might be saying that premise
has led to some problem.
> I don't care whether it is Franz' or Harlequin's stuff, or some
> other system, as long as people can use it on either implementation;
Well, not as an official corporate statement, but as one person's
private observation about history: While Lisp vendors sometimes donate
free stuff that runs on all platforms, it's rare. It's hard to get
resources to have your people make code meant for another vendor's
platform work better. This was sort of tried and largely failed with
CLIM itself some years back. Now again we have CLIM on various
platforms, but no shared sources. The same was true when Lisp Machine
companies/organizations (LMI, MIT, TI, Symbolics) tried to share
sources for Zetalisp. It didn't work. Much code ran in common
between them, but a portable implementation maintained by a vendor was
impractical.
CL-HTTP, by contrast, was developed outside of a vendor, and had
motivation to seek platform support on each vendor platform, so it
does run portably because a neutral party did the work. If a neutral
party made a portable GUI builder and offer it up for others to use,
that'd be great. (Hint, hint. :-) It doesn't even require anyone to
agree it's a good idea. It just requires someone to unilaterally and
out of the goodness of their own heart do a lot of work for no pay.
...oh, and then either to contribute it in such a way that they no
longer control it or else to be willing to be bombarded by mail from
ungrateful people who say that because the work is not totally
unrestricted, it wasn't worth doing after all.
Well, at least you can see why we're not knee-deep in free, portable
GUI builders.
Raymond Toy
Kent> does run portably because a neutral party did the work. If a neutral
Kent> party made a portable GUI builder and offer it up for others to use,
Kent> that'd be great. (Hint, hint. :-) It doesn't even require anyone to
Kent> agree it's a good idea. It just requires someone to unilaterally and
Kent> out of the goodness of their own heart do a lot of work for no pay.
Kent> ...oh, and then either to contribute it in such a way that they no
Kent> longer control it or else to be willing to be bombarded by mail from
Kent> ungrateful people who say that because the work is not totally
Kent> unrestricted, it wasn't worth doing after all.
Kent> Well, at least you can see why we're not knee-deep in free, portable
Kent> GUI builders.
Is this what the CMU folks did with Garnet? It's public domain.
Don't know how portable it is, but did run on ACL, Lucid, lispworks,
and CMUCL.
It seems to have been abandoned, though. Too bad.
Ray
Rainer Joswig
wrote:
One license. Right?
Atleast for my purpose, commercial Common Lisp on Unix is not
attractive option. Too expensive for me. I wonder
why Unix Lisps are upto ten times more expensive than on Mac or
PC for a single seat?
Open Genera 2.0 will cost around $5000 with a lot of source
and some add ons. Multiple Virtual Lisp Machines on
one DEC Alpha is included, AFAIK. Seems to be more attractive, atleast to
me.
Mike McDonald
jos...@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) writes:
> In article <r%aM1.5051$K02.2...@news.teleport.com>, mik...@mikemac.com
> wrote:
>
>> In article <6tr8mj$p40$1...@krant.cs.uu.nl>,
>> lu...@cs.uu.nl (Peter Lucas) writes:
>>
>> > Relevant questions are: will Franz work further on CLIM, will it improve
>> > the quality of the implementation for Windows, and will CLIM be available
>> > for Linux. It doesn't seem unlikely that the Unix people at Franz have
>> > ACL for Linux running with CLIM.
>> >
>> > Peter
>>
>> CLIM is available for ACL5.0 on Linux. The combo of the two runs something
>> like $4200 if I remember correctly.
>
> One license. Right?
Yup. Sure put CLIm out of my price range for personal projects.
> Open Genera 2.0 will cost around $5000 with a lot of source
> and some add ons. Multiple Virtual Lisp Machines on
> one DEC Alpha is included, AFAIK. Seems to be more attractive, atleast to
> me.
Hmm, I wonder if I could con the boss into buying me a copy for the DEC here
at work. :-)
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
David Steuber The Interloper
claimed or asked:
% Well, at least you can see why we're not knee-deep in free, portable
% GUI builders.
The windowing interfaces (AWT & Swing) have been the achilles heal of
Java. Java is very good and very fast for doing a number of things in
cross platform applications. When it comes to the windowing, boom!
It is improving, but I think it demonstrates just how difficult it is
to create a single library that works on completely different systems.
--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
When the long night comes, return to the end of the beginning.
--- Kosh (???? - 2261 AD) Babylon-5
Peter Lucas
>>> > Relevant questions are: will Franz work further on CLIM, will it improve
>>> > the quality of the implementation for Windows, and will CLIM be available
>>> > for Linux. It doesn't seem unlikely that the Unix people at Franz have
>>> > ACL for Linux running with CLIM.
>>> >
>>> > Peter
>>>
>>> CLIM is available for ACL5.0 on Linux. The combo of the two runs something
>>> like $4200 if I remember correctly.
>>
>> One license. Right?
Mike,
Are you sure? ACL 5.0 is still freely available for Linux, and I haven't
seen something on CLIM for Linux. We are running here ACL 5.beta and CLIM
with the Composer for SUN as a site license at about $7000.
Martti Halminen
>
> Martti Halminen <m...@dpe.fi> writes:
>
> > What is needed is some portable way of creating GUIs.
>
> As opposed to "some way of creating portable GUIs"? i.e., if the tool
> is interactive and the resulting code ports, why does it matter if the
> tool ports? I'm not being contentious here, just trying to understand
> clearly what your need is.
If there exists some other tool on the other Lisp implementations to
handle the stuff, source code portability is sufficient; this would be
something like Tcl/Tk, where there is a common code form and potentially
several different GUI builders, interface editors or whatever you like
to call them to ease producing the code. Any hope of creating some kind
of common UI API for CL?
> If one vendor offers one interface and another offers another, is that
> enough?
On the short view it is not a problem from our viewpoint, as we are
already locked to a single vendor through proprietary multithreading and
FFI stuff. In a longer view it is hurting the Lisp community, as there
isn't all that much either portable software or people capable of
building it available.
> CL-HTTP, by contrast, was developed outside of a vendor, and had
> motivation to seek platform support on each vendor platform, so it
> does run portably because a neutral party did the work. If a neutral
> party made a portable GUI builder and offer it up for others to use,
> that'd be great. (Hint, hint. :-) It doesn't even require anyone to
> agree it's a good idea. It just requires someone to unilaterally and
> out of the goodness of their own heart do a lot of work for no pay.
>
> ...oh, and then either to contribute it in such a way that they no
> longer control it or else to be willing to be bombarded by mail from
> ungrateful people who say that because the work is not totally
> unrestricted, it wasn't worth doing after all.
Seemed to work for the Linux people :-)
Regrettably, Lisp seems unlikely to have a sufficiently large developer
community anytime soon.
Kelly Murray
in the world, for a Mac, Amiga, Windoz, Xwindows, Novell,
Panasonic and Sony, even Magnavox (a Television).
It's known as HTTP and HTML, or commonly as a Web Browser.
-Kelly Murray
Mike McDonald
Clemens <cle...@tk147112.tuwien.teleweb.at> writes:
> lu...@cs.uu.nl (Peter Lucas) writes:
>> In <I1iM1.5606$K02.2...@news.teleport.com> mik...@teleport.com (Mike McDonald) writes:
>> >>> >> >>> CLIM is available for ACL5.0 on Linux. The combo of the two runs something
>> >>> like $4200 if I remember correctly.
>> >> >> >> One license. Right?
>> >> Mike,
>> >> Are you sure? ACL 5.0 is still freely available for Linux, and I haven't
>> seen something on CLIM for Linux. We are running here ACL 5.beta and CLIM
>> with the Composer for SUN as a site license at about $7000.
> There are different licenses around: the "commercial" one, and the
> "non-commercial" one. For non-commercial purposes, ACL 5.0 for Linux
> is free (as in "you don't have to pay for it"), for commercial
> purposes, you have to pay for it. There is also a Personal Edition,
> which includes support.
> CLIM is available for Redhat 4 systems. The commercial license
> ACL+CLIM is probably the $4200 quoted above, the non-commercial CLIM
> license is much cheaper.
Hmm, Franz only quoted me the $4200 price for ACL with CLIM. They made no
mention of a "Personal Edition" for Linux nor can I find any reference to such
a thing on their web site. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that Franz isn't
"promoting" it if it does exist.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Erik Naggum
| Regrettably, Lisp seems unlikely to have a sufficiently large developer
| community anytime soon.
it certainly won't come about if people walk around with this attitude.
why is it that so many Lisp people appear clinically depressed and so
utterly unable to appreciate what they have and go gather people and have
fun together if that's what they want? not only does it bug the hell out
of me that people don't just _do_ what they would like to do instead of
this depressing shit -- how can they stand it themselves? and who wants
to share anything with people who can only be expected to say "thanks,
that's very nice, but what's the use, anyway?" sheesh!
#:Erik
--
ATTENTION, all abducting aliens! you DON'T need to RETURN them!
Matt Kressel
Contrary to your opinion, HTML does not apply as a GUI. For one thing,
HTML (on its own) lacks event handling, unless you consider CGI, and the Java
languages. Secondly, HTML on its own does not allow for *much* control over
layout (before css, XML, etc.). Thirdly, it must be run inside of a web
browser,
which runs inside another GUI, therefore it is not a GUI in itself. Finally,
HTML can be viewed with no graphics at all (i.e. lynx) which I would hardly
characterize as graphical.
True, there are aspects of HTML that *seem* like a GUI, but let me ask you
this:
Would you want to implement a game, or a business application, or even a
simple
calculator using solely HTML? HTML is extremely lacking in many features.
That
is why the poularity of languages like Java and Javascript have become so
popular.
Also, please don't flame, as this is only my $0.02
-Matt
Kelly Murray
>
> Kelly Murray wrote:
> >
> > I've been using a GUI that is portable to just about everything
> > in the world, for a Mac, Amiga, Windoz, Xwindows, Novell,
> > Panasonic and Sony, even Magnavox (a Television).
> > It's known as HTTP and HTML, or commonly as a Web Browser.
> >
> > -Kelly Murray
>
> Contrary to your opinion, HTML does not apply as a GUI. For one thing,
> HTML (on its own) lacks event handling, unless you consider CGI, and the Java
> languages. Secondly, HTML on its own does not allow for *much* control over
> layout (before css, XML, etc.). Thirdly, it must be run inside of a web
> browser,
> which runs inside another GUI, therefore it is not a GUI in itself. Finally,
> HTML can be viewed with no graphics at all (i.e. lynx) which I would hardly
> characterize as graphical.
Clearly HTML itself is not enough, that is why I specifically
said HTTP and HTML and a Web Browser.
>
> True, there are aspects of HTML that *seem* like a GUI, but let me ask you
> this:
> Would you want to implement a game, or a business application, or even a
> simple
> calculator using solely HTML? HTML is extremely lacking in many features.
All the above applications and more have been done using a web browser
as the user interface. I have personally implemented multiple
businesss applications, and even a simple calculator app!
> That
> is why the poularity of languages like Java and Javascript have become so
> popular.
>
> Also, please don't flame, as this is only my $0.02
>
Uh, your reply was a bit flameish..
The original question was seeking portability as a key feature
for a GUI (and we all assume the ability to use Lisp to program it)
and in this case, a web-browser GUI (yes, it IS a GUI)
fits the bill more than any other. If they want to implement
some highly bit-twiddling action game (e.g "doom"),
then clearly a web browser GUI is not the best choice.
Let me rephrase my original comment using polite and humble words
which is how other people say things:
"Perhaps you could look into using a web browser as a user interface
for your application?"
-Kelly Murray k...@htrd.com
Phil Stubblefield
>
> Hmm, Franz only quoted me the $4200 price for ACL with CLIM. They
> made no mention of a "Personal Edition" for Linux nor can I find
> any reference to such a thing on their web site. I'm not saying
> you're wrong, just that Franz isn't "promoting" it if it does exist.
It may just be that your salesperson was uninformed. Actually,
based on our experience, I would have to say that Franz' sales
division is one of the weakest parts of the company. During our
long-time relationship with Franz, we have nearly always received
technical support that ranged from good to superb, with bugs often
patched or work-arounds suggested within a day. Twice we have had
Franz software engineers work at our site for a period of time in
order to understand our needs better and enhance their products
appropriately.
Unfortunately, their sales force has always been the thorn in our
side. The turnover is high, and the new sales rep never seems to
know our history with the company. Many times, we have had to dig
up documentation to prove that, yes, we are entitled to source code
for this system or that system. Sigh. It gets very old at times.
So the bottom line is: don't assume Franz has no product to meet
your needs just because their salesperson doesn't know about it.
Try to speak with a technical person if you can come up with any
plausible reason to do so. And keep in mind that Franz, like most
companies, is willing to wheel and deal if you can convince them
that supporting you as a customer will help support them as a
company in the long run.
Phil Stubblefield
Rockwell Palo Alto Laboratory 650/325-7165
http://www.rpal.rockwell.com/~phil ph...@rpal.rockwell.com
Rainer Joswig
> Regrettably, Lisp seems unlikely to have a sufficiently large developer
> community anytime soon.
I'm trying to use CLIM and/or CL-HTTP for interfaces.
Both are interesting technologies, but they have a very different
model how they evolve. Since I don't
have time for "one vendor UIMS", I don't use most of these
other GUI attempts.
Customer demand will improve these things and there
**is** room for improvement.
--
Rainer Joswig, http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig
David Steuber The Interloper
<k...@IntelliMarket.Com> claimed or asked:
% I've been using a GUI that is portable to just about everything
% in the world, for a Mac, Amiga, Windoz, Xwindows, Novell,
% Panasonic and Sony, even Magnavox (a Television).
% It's known as HTTP and HTML, or commonly as a Web Browser.
HTTP is a protocol, not a GUI.
HTML is not a GUI either. It is just a mark up language for
structured documents. Lynx is a text only browser that renders HTML.
Note that Lynx will not run JavaScript or Java or ActiveX controls
embedded in an HTML document.
David Steuber The Interloper
<k...@IntelliMarket.Com> claimed or asked:
% All the above applications and more have been done using a web browser
% as the user interface. I have personally implemented multiple
% businesss applications, and even a simple calculator app!
JavaScript is not very portable. It runs in Netscape browsers only.
MSIE runs JScript (very similar to JavaScript, but not the same) and
VBScript. You can even use DHTML. But the two big browsers have
different DOMs. Not portable.
A web application can be implemented in a completely portable way if
the user interface is pure HTML. With CSS it can even look good on
the graphical browsers that understand CSS. But you must be aware
that the logic is all on the server in that case.
David Steuber The Interloper
claimed or asked:
% Regrettably, Lisp seems unlikely to have a sufficiently large developer
% community anytime soon.
You may be right. But I am looking into the language. I'm sure other
people are. With Linux growing in popularity it seems that there will
be more Lisp programmers. CLOS can make some compelling points for X
applications.
Erik Naggum
| HTTP is a protocol, not a GUI.
|
| HTML is not a GUI either.
you miss the point. today's GUI's are generally built out of hard-coded
event handlers. a language that could describe the display and the
events and associate them with protocol elements such that it would all
be data-driven (instead of code-driven) and which required a protocol
between the server and the client such that the server only dealt with
function calls returning values to the client and the client did all the
event handling and dispatching and display, would cause a giant leap
forward in GUI design and simplify the tasks involved _tremendously_.
but thanks to Microsoft, we now mostly have code-driven GUIs that are as
portable as the average Egyptian pyramid and which ensure as much "full
employment" as the same pyramids, and we now mostly have people who don't
even understand the differences and the layering of language, protocol,
and display engine. this saddens me greatly, because such crap as HTML
and HTTP appear to be solutions.
Lieven Marchand
> In article <m33e9p8...@tk147112.tuwien.teleweb.at>,
> > There are different licenses around: the "commercial" one, and the
> > "non-commercial" one. For non-commercial purposes, ACL 5.0 for Linux
> > is free (as in "you don't have to pay for it"), for commercial
> > purposes, you have to pay for it. There is also a Personal Edition,
> > which includes support.
> > CLIM is available for Redhat 4 systems. The commercial license
> > ACL+CLIM is probably the $4200 quoted above, the non-commercial CLIM
> > license is much cheaper.
>
> Hmm, Franz only quoted me the $4200 price for ACL with CLIM. They made no
> mention of a "Personal Edition" for Linux nor can I find any reference to such
> a thing on their web site. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that Franz isn't
> "promoting" it if it does exist.
I asked them some time ago and I specifically said it was for personal use
- so non commercial - and I also got a reply that you could only get CLIM
as add on to a commercially supported version of ACL and the price tag was
indeed around $4000.
--
Lieven Marchand <m...@bewoner.dma.be>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few people have a talent for constructive laziness. -- Lazarus Long
David Steuber The Interloper
asked:
% * tras...@david-steuber.com (David Steuber "The Interloper")
% | HTTP is a protocol, not a GUI.
% |
% | HTML is not a GUI either.
%
% you miss the point. today's GUI's are generally built out of hard-coded
% event handlers. a language that could describe the display and the
% events and associate them with protocol elements such that it would all
% be data-driven (instead of code-driven)
I don't think I miss the point if anyone is attempting to use HTML as
a typesetting language. But your right that it sets a model for data
driven behavior.
One of the reasons I am interested in Lisp is that it can communicate
data. For example, I might have an object that I pass to a program
that understands what that object is and how to represent it as:
(sphere x y z r)
In the context of a browser, I would use VRML instead of Lisp. Lisp
can of course generate VRML.