Re: Functional Objects Site

Subject: Re: Functional Objects Site
From: brucehoult@pobox.com (Bruce Hoult)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:15:14 -0500 (EST)
Organization: The Internet Group Ltd
References: <comp.lang.dylan.3820B620.3F1E590B@lostwax.com> <comp.lang.dylan.19991104103449.3621.qmail@gorn.americom.com> <ey3yacemp77.fsf@lostwithiel.tfeb.org>
Xref: grapevine.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:11039

In article <ey3yacemp77.fsf@lostwithiel.tfeb.org>, Tim Bradshaw
<tfb@tfeb.org> wrote:

> Of course this is only for UI issues, porting the compiler is another
> issue.  I guess there the two obvious candidates are sparc (Sun) and
> powerpc (Mac).  I'd vote for sparc, combined with a Unix/Linux port,
> as that should get any x86 Unixoid system, and Suns, while powerpc
> only gets Macs
> 
> (Of course, I have a Sun so I'm a bit biased here).
I have at home (and use often enough to have them ethernetted together) [1]:

- desktop and portable G3 Macs running MacOS and LinuxPPC
- PentiumPro PC running Linux
- SPARC ELC running Solaris
- SGI Indy running Irix

I'd like to be able to use Dylan on all of those, pretty much in order of
importance to me.

-- Bruce

[1] I'm prepared to forgo Dylan support for the Win95 PC, Quadra 630,
Newton 2000, Palm III and EMate 300.

References:

Re: Functional Objects Site

From: rwk@americom.com

Re: Functional Objects Site

From: Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org>