[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why I don't use Dylan
So there are 30-day free evaluations for everything from Fun-O.
I also can't fathom for the life of me why someone would simultaneously
think that Dylan might almost be the ultimate programming language,
but then won't even take the trouble to see that there is a free evaluation,
and furthermore spreads misinformation to other people about them
having to pay money even to try it.
I don't work for Functional Objects, so don't hold my sharp tongue against
them.
tejavu@my-deja.com wrote in message <8je1hp$53j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I use Dolphin Smalltalk for Win32 programming, but have been browsing
>in my spare time for something better. Dolphin has been improving a
>lot over the past couple of years, and I like it more and more, so I'm
>spending less and less time browsing for something better. Dylan
>seemed very interesting, and I downloaded version 1 from Harlequin
>sometime in the past. But I was disappointed at how slowly it compiled
>and how big the dll's needed by the executable were. More recently, I
>downloaded version 2 from F.O. and started to give it a try, by
>following the examples and/or tutorials. I started at the beginning,
>where it suggested starting with the Reversi example. But when I went
>there, it said something to the effect that I had to pay money for
>libraries before I could proceed with that. But since I'm just
>browsing for something better than Smalltalk, I'm not ready to pay
>money for it yet. Especially since Smalltalk keeps improving, and it
>starts to seem like I will get the best by simply staying with
>Smalltalk while it continues to improve.
>
>And I think Dylan may gradually fade away, because it might not have
>enough support to ever get critical mass. Critical mass is what makes
>Java useful in spite of how bad a language it is. It causes the
>vendors to compete against each other to provide the best tools at the
>lowest prices, and the biggest and most functional libraries.
>
>It's sad, because Dylan seemed almost like the ultimate programming
>language, and I had high hopes for it. It's too bad the best
>programming language designers tend to suck so badly at promoting their
>products.
>
>But even though I have lost a lot of my interest in Dylan, I still do
>discuss it sometimes, and sometimes suggest to other programmers that
>it might be worth trying, especially if they're willing to pay money to
>try it. One thing I would like to know is how well it does in
>benchmarks against LispWorks, because that question came up in a recent
>discussion.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Follow-Ups:
References: