[clean-list] Wish list, part 3

[Marco Kesseler]

>> - the IO libraries (and the runtime in general). Maintaining these
>> for different platforms is a lot of work, and not research per se. I
>> understand if the Clean research team does not put an equal amount of
>> work in all versions. Delays in IO library development however,
>> should not hold back new releases of the compiler, and I do think
>> that they should at least put SOME effort in all variants (Linux
>> too). It would be best if additional parties get involved.
>
>My contributions should perhaps be more of a footnote than a note, since I
>am still not completely fluent in Clean, and have little experience with
>developing software or with studying computer science.  Nonetheless,
>regarding IO library support:
>
>    (a)    Is the development of the clean IO library still of sufficient
>theoretical interest to anyone on the research team to merit
>multiple-platform development?

I am afraid that only a member of the Clean-team can really answer 
that one.

>    (b)    Are the apparent (to my untrained eye) similarities between
>existential data types and 'objects' real and sufficient to allow seamless
>communication between a back-end 'event/message stream interface' written in
>Clean and a front end 'user interface' written in an object oriented
>programming language?

I don't know yet, but I think that would be a major goal of the 
second point on the language list: '- better interfacing with 
imperative (object-oriented) languages'.

> If the answers to these question are 'no' and 'yes', respectively, then I
>think the Clean team should:
>    (i)    Declare and finalize a basic GUI standard for multiple-platform
>IO libraries that would
>                - allow reasonable ease-of-use for experimental and
>prototype programs
>                - maintain the easy transfer of clean programs at the
>prototype level between platforms
>    (ii)    Concentrate on improving the C to Clean interface
>    (iii)    Redeploy HILT resources to the support of IO libraries for
>platforms that clients need help with. (More profit for HILT -> more
>resources for Clean.)
>    (iv)    Encourage 'open-source' type development of the GUI
>specification and be willing to re-distribute specification consistent and
>platform-transparent libraries(i.e., libraries for which Linux, Mac, and PC
>versions have all been written) as part of an updated GUI
>specification/library package.

Seems sensible. Can anyone from the Clean team comment on that?

>I think that beyond the practical necessity and theoretical interest of
>allowing Clean to interact robustly and provably with that crazy,
>destructively updated external world out there, the development of a
>'complete' language specific and multi-platform I/O library is a bit of a
>red hampster. What we have (or will have soon) is sufficient for
>experimentaton and the development of prototype programs.  What we could
>have with a maximum of effort will always lag behind OS-supported languages
>and visually-oriented design tools for the development the user/system
>interface of 'final' programs.

I think that you are right, although I must say that the my 
experience with visually oriented design tools is that these tend to 
lead to rather 'static' systems. Perhaps the Clean IO lib can 
actually improve on that.

But even if it does, that won't be here and now for all platforms. 
Better to support other solutions as well.

regards,
Marco