[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
Charles Hixson wrote:
>
> Scott Ribe wrote:
>
> > ...
> > I think Dylan syntax is "more sensible" ONLY in practical/political
> > terms. Personally, I don't mind either. But here's my own take:
>
> I think the question is, why was this decision needed?
That's a very good question. I think it was largely political, but in
terms of market differentiation rather than simple syntax phobia.
As I said, if someone wants a language that looks like Lisp and acts
like Lisp, Lisp may be a good choice for them. Dylan needed to clearly
differentiate itself.
> If the two syntaxes were isomorphic, why couldn't both be maintained.
Resources for one, and splitting the user base for another. The latter
in particular would be harmful.
If you like some aspects of Dylan and would like to see them in Lisp,
Paul Graham's ANSI Common Lisp book has a page or two on implementing
some Dylan operations in Lisp. Even if not, it's an interesting read. :-)
> Also, Lisp syntax is much easier for machine parsers/constructors to operate
> on. If Dylan had retained the Lisp syntax, then it would be much more
> suitable for mechanical generation of programs, etc.
I like high-level languages to be mostly for my benefit, not the
machine's, although I do recognize the power of the techniques you mention.
- Rob.
--
Rob Myers - http://www.robmyers.org/ H2G2 - http://www.h2g2.com/
MacOS wonderfulness for The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Game.
"Don't talk to sociologists. Social practice has no sociological
content." - Art & Language.
Follow-Ups:
References: