From: Dave Liebing
Subject: CLIM vs ??
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 01:31:33 +0000
Message-ID: <1ob7pl$gkj@fang.dsto.gov.au>

I am interested in comments from anyone with first-hand experience in building a GUI
for a lisp-based program.  SpecificallY I would like to hear any comments on CLIM
(speed of operation, ease of use, "bugginess" etc.) from people who have used it
(or heard of it being used).  Any experience on CLIM vs calling a C-based X toolkit
directly would also be appreciated.  In fact almost anyone's experiences with
GUIs for lisp (I am restricted to lucid common lisp) would be welcome.

Thanks

Dave Liebing

From: Scott McKay
Subject: CLIM vs ??
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 15:19:18 +0000
Message-ID: <19930319152001.2.SWM@SUMMER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 20:31 EST
    From: Dave Liebing <···@mod.dsto.gov.au>

I've included ····@BBN.COM, which is probably a more appropriate list.

    I am interested in comments from anyone with first-hand experience in
    building a GUI for a lisp-based program.  SpecificallY I would like to hear
    any comments on CLIM (speed of operation, ease of use, "bugginess" etc.)
    from people who have used it (or heard of it being used).  Any experience
    on CLIM vs calling a C-based X toolkit directly would also be appreciated.
    In fact almost anyone's experiences with GUIs for lisp (I am restricted to
    lucid common lisp) would be welcome.

When you get your replies, please keep in mind that many people are
using CLIM 1.1, which does not have direct support for calling toolkits.
CLIM 2.0, in addition to having direct support for gadget-style
programming, is also faster than CLIM 1.1, and in the areas where the
functionality is the same as CLIM 1.1 (i.e., most of it), CLIM 2.0 has
fewer bugs as well.

Note that I am not claiming that CLIM 2.0 is perfect.  Just that, for
the questions you want answers to, it's much better than what most
respondents will be running.