[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: HARLEQUIN DYLAN and C FFI
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:15:01 -0500 (EST), Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
wrote:
> I was under the impression that Harlequin Dylan was no more and that
> the rights were sold to Functional Objects, Inc. Could you expand on your
> statement a little? The Dylan situation is confusing (as well as tragic
> :-() and since the FO web site isn't very informative it isn't surprising
> that people suspect the worst.
What I meant was that Fun-O is now supporting what used to be Harlequin Dylan
so there's no need to run off. Personally, I still work at Harlequin, but I
help Fun-O in my spare time.
> > > I chanced acrossed Dolphin Smalltalk and was amazed at how
> > > easy it appears to be. I need a language that can replace C/C++ but still
> > > use the available SDK's out there for graphics and music, like FMOD. I am
> > > currently looking at squeak now. Does Smalltalk come in like a bazillion
> > > flavors ?
> >
> > I don't want to dis' Smalltalk since it will be better than C/C++ (as will
> > Common Lisp, OCAML, or even Java).
>
> It depends on the kinds of games and the kinds of processing that your
> game programs are doing. I don't think dynamic languages can give you the
> same small memory footprint or high performance as static languages. That
> was supposed to be the point of the type declarations and sealing in
> Dylan, right?
Its true that it depends on the sort of games you are writing, but loads of
games seem use a hybrid of an optimized core engine and a more dynamic scripted
part. The latter is a candidate for being written in a existing dynamic
language rather than a custom scripting language.
__Jason
Follow-Ups:
References: