[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A question

Stephen J. Guthrie <steve.guthrie@mantissa.com> wrote in message
KJOe4.12820$Ce.296638@monger.newsread.com">news:KJOe4.12820$Ce.296638@monger.newsread.com...
> Don't get me wrong - I'm looking for an excuse to use Dylan again.

And yet you talk about a "closed, Dylan-centric world".

> Most of all the stuff you mentioned that is available to Dylan is
> also available to Java, Smalltalk, Eiffel, etc . .

It turns out my Smalltalk experience is a tad out of date....  :-)  But your
own statement here belies both the "closed, Smalltalk-centric world" and the
"closed, Dylan-centric world" you cited.  Again it looks to me like you've
made your decision in advance.

> [...] why not answer my question about the use(s) of Dylan, [...]

It's a general-purpose programming language.  It can be used in any capacity
that a general-purpose programming language can be used in.  What is your
actual question?

> [...] particualarly what you are up to in the language.

I'm currently writing a whole boat-load (only replace "boat" with a common
scatalogical vulgarity:-) of utilities to assist me in one of my hobbies:
wargaming.  For example, one of the games I play -- Starfire -- is very
paperwork-intensive.  The amount of record-keeping required in that game is
nothing short of incredible.  I'm designing and building a suite of
utilities to keep track of resources, construction, communications, fleet
orders and movement (among about a dozen other things).

> As to Dylan-centric worlds, please illuminate me as to where Dylan
> does exist and how it is used.

I'm not working for Functional Objects, so I have no idea who their customer
base is and where they use their software.  Perhaps you should be talking to
FO instead?

--
Michael T. Richter    <mtr@ottawa.com>    http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nadiam@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Follow-Ups: References: