Re: A question

• To: sribe@miqs.com, info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: A question
• From: rwk@americom.com
• Date: 12 Jan 2000 13:55:42 -0700
• In-reply-to: <387CBF87.1A5A86D0@miqs.com> (message from Scott Ribe on Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:00:01 -0500 (EST))
• References: <uaIe4.12653$Ce.289242@monger.newsread.com> <387BC10E.BED9F41F@miqs.com> <20000112004057.18210.qmail@gorn.americom.com> <387CBF87.1A5A86D0@miqs.com>
• Sender: owner-info-dylan@ai.mit.edu

> rwk@americom.com wrote:
> > 
> > It is a real shame too, as next to the language "Self" (which fizzled
> > out and I have no idea why as it was *so* cool), Dylan is the only other
> > language I am aware of which even approaches a 21st century language.
> 
> Hmm. Before fading away Self did inspire NewtonScript. Oops, never mind
> ;-)
> 
> There are others: Sather for instance.

I don't know Sather.  Is if pure OO?  If so, where can I find it?

Thanks,
Dick

• Re: A question
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>

• A question
• From: "Stephen J. Guthrie" <steve.guthrie@mantissa.com>
• Re: A question
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>
• Re: A question
• From: rwk@americom.com
• Re: A question
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>

• Prev: Re: MI: why?
• Next: Re: MI: why?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread