Re: Functional Objects Site

Subject: Re: Functional Objects Site
From: Rob Myers <robm@lostwax.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:00:04 -0500 (EST)
Organization: Lost Wax Media Ltd.
References: <8BD9EAF3D959D31180950090270BE6A2DF53@dns.eyak.com>
Reply-To: robm@lostwax.com
Xref: grapevine.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:11029

Andrew Shalit wrote:

> I wasn't part of the team that chose the new name, but I think it's great, is
much
> less confusing, and will have a good business appeal.

But Dylan isn't just functional, it has OODLs of other features. And
"functional" isn't exactly flavour of the month with businesses.
"Functional Developer" is a strong name, I just don't believe that it's a strong
selling one. Object would be stronger (COM stronger still. :-( ).

> Plus, it doesn't have the trademark encumberances that "Dylan" has.

This is a very good point. :-)

> Signed copies of the DRM could certainly be arranged. ;-)

Eek! I'm turning into a Dylan groupie! :-)

- Rob.