[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Are there any .NET possibilities/implications for Dylan/Functional Developer?
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:30:02 -0400 (EDT), Barry Margolin
<barmar@genuity.net> wrote:
> In article <t4d1jtgi5vc3hh1ckh1p7uls87vntmnek0@4ax.com>,
> Jason Trenouth <jason.trenouth@globalgraphics.com> wrote:
> >Dylan is arguably:
> >
> > Scheme-ish semantics ( single namespace, some conventions )
> > Common Lisp-ish object system ( generic functions, MI, etc )
> > Pascal-ish syntax ( infix, begin/end )
> > Smalltalk-ish philosophy ( OOP all the way )
>
> Isn't this likely to make it difficult to do a .NET version of Dylan?
> There was a recent thread in comp.lang.lisp about a .NET version of Common
> Lisp. I didn't read it all, but the concensus seemed to be that Lisp's
> semantics don't map well onto .NET. So while you could do the port, you'd
> either have to leave things out or it will be horribly inefficient. I'd
> expect the same thing for Dylan.
Yes, Duane R. of F. described why they had rejected a direct port. However,
other folks have done ports of advanced languages eg Eiffel so it might
merit a look for Dylan.
__Jason
Follow-Ups:
References: