[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Harlequin 1.2 still available?
Andreas Bogk wrote in message ...
>Hugh Greene <q@tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> separate /source record/. The Dylan language design allows for what we
>> would think of as "source files" actually just being views into a
>> database. FunDev's "composite buffers" produced by commands like "Edit
>> Methods" give you a taste of how this would work.
>
>Apple Dylan actually did store all of the code in a database. There
>were no source files, just database views.
FWIW, one reason Harlqn Dylan/Fun-O Dylan is implemented the
way it is, is that I became convinced of the wrongness of Apple's
approach in the "corporate world". If you had a large investment
in source code, would you rather (1) use the proprietary source
code database of some non-mainstream company, or (2) use a
widely used, well-debugged, standard system such as CVS?
Also, pure database views often miss out one very important axis,
namely, "the view the author intended you to see". I used a large
database-backed doc system, and it did not do a good job of
this, and let me tell you that it was a nightmare.
>> > Ahhh, Link-n-Go, the mysterious vanishing feature. Cool, I didn't
know
>> > the Dylan systems offered this.
>> I think only FunDev does just now (i.e., not Mindy or Gwydion's d2c --
>> dunno about the fabled Apple Dylan tech. release). BTW, I think in 2.0
>
>Apple Dylan had it all. Oh, how I hate them for terminating the
>project just when the result was finally in reach.
Follow-Ups:
References: