🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JWZ.92Oct7230636@thalidomide.lucid.com>, jwz@lucid.com (Jamie
Zawinski) writes:
> If it's harder to handle events in Epoch
> than in GWM, then that just means that GWM has a better design for event
> handling, right?  They're both lisps.

no, wool (gwm's lisp) is not a traditional lisp. Its engine is lisp-ish but its
data structures are C-ish. Gwm takes advantage of this in building a relevant
event type close to the X events in C and exporting it to the wool layer.
But:
Jamie, I feel you are right in saying that the most important thing is the
design, not so much the language used.
But then Alan is right is saying that if you have a tool that is already
designed to solve a problem close to what you want to solve, you'd better use
it instead of contriving a more general one to do the job...

> I think that writing a new lisp (with a brand new idiosyncratic
> syntax, no less) was a pretty big mistake.

with a brand new idiosyncratic syntax:		YES
writing a new lisp:				not sure here.
	It would have been a mistake if wool was just another lisp, but I feel
	that the added features are worth the differences and could not easily
	be added in a more traditional lisp architecture. (I am speaking of the
	new wool v2, not yet released)

-- 
Colas Nahaboo, colas@sa.inria.fr, Bull Research Koala proj. Wool&Gwm Architect
Pho:(33) 93.65.77.70(.66 Fax), INRIA, B.P.93 - 06902 Sophia Antipolis, FRANCE.