[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: HARLEQUIN DYLAN and C FFI
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Peter wrote:
> In article <V2iYOGFg4TflhfsQBi5pb6KvCcKy@4ax.com>, Jason Trenouth
> > 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 think that Scriptics (the company behind Tcl/Tk) has 40 people. If a
> language as bad and as blatantly cheesy as Tcl can survive, there is hope
> for Dylan.
Hardly any programming languages *die*. There are still quite a few people
using SNOBOL/SPITBOL you know. I think the Dylan community would prefer
something more than mere survival.
I'd be happy if the free Dylan implementations could achieve the ease of
installation of say OCaml. On Windows, an InstallShield based painless
installation. On Unix, a configure/make style installation that has been
flawless on every Unix I've tried it on. And it has a real garbage
collector, not the inaccurate one that all of these compile-to-C languages
use :-) (ducking and running for cover..)
-- Brian
References: