[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A question
rwk@americom.com wrote:
>
...
> . I understand, Harliquin's Dylan provides incremantal compilation (in a
> running application) though I have not used it. I would like to know
> how well it works. Is Smalltalk interpreted?
Incremental compilation works great in FunDev. Just hit Ctrl-Shift-C
on the method/class/variable/etc in the editor and your running program
reflects the change immediately.
One of the things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the
excellent Functional Developer IDE. It definately requires a beefy
machine with at least 128MB memory, but it's a well thought out
environment, and a pleasure to use.
DUIM is a very nice UI toolkit also.
> . Dylan's container classes are second to none with a rich extensible
> hierarchy.
>
> . Excellent exception handling (though I know nothing of Smalltalk's)
>
> . Class and Subclass slots as well as virtual slots.
>
> . Flexible typing system allowing easy prototyping up front, and
> performance tuning later.
And FunDev supports the performance tuning with dispatch optimization
coloring and the new profiling interface.
> > "Stephen J. Guthrie" wrote:
> > >
> > > I purchased the Dylan Professional from Harlequin about a year ago and
> > > stopped using it entirely after the recent events with FO. I'm considering
> > > picking the language back up but I would like an objective evaluation as to
> > > why I should.
> > >
> > > I recently began programming in Squeak (Smalltalk). Give me a reason to
> > > come back to Dylan.
I don't know much about Smalltalk, but I've been programming in Java
for the last few years and when using Dylan it's such a relief not to
be forced to design my program in a certain way because of single
inheritance, single dispatch, and a generally class-centric world-view.
Icky icky icky pah-too. And you can quote me on that.
References: