From: UK0392@AppleLink.Apple.COM (EHN & DIJ Oakley,GB,IDV)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp.mcl
Subject: Re2: Mother ship App.(flame)
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:58:00 GMT

Whoa!  Not only a flame, but going against all my experience and feelings!
Come now, John:
 
>I don't know if anyone really wanted an 'applications environment' when they
>bought MCL.
If you mean an extensible development environment, which can amount to the same
thing, I think that you underestimate the number of those who would like it.
 
>MCL does infact make stand alone applications,  even though they're too big
>to be of any use to anyone
Well, we have one MCL app which is being used in beta, one which has 'shipped'
(vertical market), and another under development now which is due to go into
late beta by the end of February 93, and four more in design.  I am sure that
there are others out there...
 
>The fact is,  MCL makes B I G CLUMSY and BUGGY applications
As others have pointed out, this is categorically untrue.  Admittedly, I have
only used THINK C, TML Pascal, MPW Pascal, MPW C, MPW C++, with and without
MacApp from 1.1.1 to 3.0, Prograph, ProIcon, and MacProlog, as Mac development
systems, but MCL 2.0 produces by far the least buggy applications (I cannot
recall a 'crash' in the conventional sense, and CL errors are almost unheard
of) of them all.  Add to that the fact that I am a rank novice Lisp programmer,
so I can lay claim to giving it a good run for its money!  [an aside:  I would
probably rank MacProlog a good second, although I have not yet used it enough
to be certain].  I keep a summary of all info-mcl messages of potential future
value, including bugs; you may be interested to hear that bugs are very few and
far between, and almost invariably fairly obscure.  Compare this with the other
development systems of which I have experience - listen in to one of the MacApp
group mailing lists for example - and MCL is virtually bug-free now.  As
regards 'clumsy', I am not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context;
however, the vertical market app is a real-time radar screen simulator which
performs immaculately, and the word 'clumsy' is definitely not one I would have
associated with it.
 
>it's also very clear that nothing is being done about the B I G and CLUMSY
>'feature'
I thought that much of this thread had emerged from the discussion arising from
three possible ways to smaller apps, suggested by one of the MCL development
team?  Again, as others have pointed out, look at any other proper Common Lisp,
and you will see something an order of magnitude bigger.  No, considering
making regular standalone apps with MCL is tribute to the effort that has gone
into keeping it lean (and mean).
 
>here's an exerpt from an article published by Andrew Shalit in the APDAlog of
>Spring 1989...
>...Nowadays the smallest program I can make is twice the size of the smallest
>program that could be made 4 years ago
You might also have noticed that almost every other Mac application over this
period has grown somewhat larger in size - Excel, Word, etc.  This may just
have a little to do with the fact that there is a lot more to the System
software, which has also grown in size.  And strangely enough, back in 89, I
only had 8 meg RAM, whilst now I have 36 megs (largely to accommodate
MPW/MacApp).  I think this may just be an industry trend :-)  What you *should*
of course do is to compare the functionality and popularity between MACL of 89
and MCL of today - I for one would never have seriously contemplated using MACL
of 89 for the things which I currently use MCL for daily.
 
>This is ridiculous,  it's quite evident that size has not been a priority,
>and it never was a priority
I do not believe that size is not and has not been a priority.  However,
complete compliance with a language standard which is of Byzantine size and
complexity (and long may it be so!), complete support for the enormity of the
Mac System without having to write loads of foreign functions, and in fact
being one of the finest Common Lisp implementations and one of the finest Mac
development environments, are also important considerations.  Fail in any of
those, and size of apps is immaterial.  I agree with the word 'ridiculous',
only I would turn it back on you and suggest that it is ridiculous to flame in
such an uninformed manner one of Apple's finest products, and one of the Mac's
most mature and productive development environments.  What is more, it is also
their best supported product, as we in info-mcl benefit from the same standard
of technical support normally only provided under expensive and select
programmes like the Apple Partner scheme.  We should come to praise MCL, not
blindly bury axes into it:  if you want to offer constructive criticism, then
surely a reasoned response to the three options for reduction in size would be
a wiser move?
 
Howard.