Erik,

You are not alone in your thoughts about the Windows GUI.  I would
probably be considered in the younger generation (I'm 28 years old)
and I have had the same experience as you with productivity on
Windows.  I also agree with your hope that the Windows programming GUI
will be an option along with an excellent Emacs programming GUI.

However, I think you may have misunderstood Jim's item 2.

| 2. We are working hard to get the PC GUI (Common Graphics and the
| Interface Builder) ported and to run well on it.  This is a very major
| task and will take us a while yet.  CLIM runs on it, but our major effort
| is going to port the PC GUI.

I think he means that they want to build the Windows API into Lisp, as
they did (partly) in ACL 3 for Windows, so that the programmer has
access to all of the Windows API commands.  I think this has only a
little to do with the programmer's interface and is definitely
optional for the programmer.

I understand Franz even wants to put the Windows API into their Unix
product and use somebody's port of the Windows API on Unix underneath.
This means that Unix programmers will be able to write to the Windows
API and have the code run on Unix.

Personally, I would rather things went the other way.  Aren't people
porting the X API to Windows?  Why not let the programmers write to
the X API and have that be portable to Windows?

Even the big game developers on Windows are rejecting Windows DirectX
API and using OpenGL or hardware-specific APIs.  John Cormack recently
made a statement to this effect.  The Windows APIs are not as good.

It's nice to see an industry bucking the trend.

-- 
Benjamin Shults                <math.utexas.edu at mailto:bshults>
Department of Mathematics      voice: 512 475 9148  <<recently changed<<
University of Texas at Austin  fax: 512 471 9038 (attn: Benjamin Shults)
Austin, TX  78712   USA        http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/bshults/