[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Lisp - First Impressions
-
To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
-
Subject: Re: Lisp - First Impressions
-
From: nospam@nospam.com ( e 4 5 5 @ y a h o o . c o m )
-
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:45:01 -0400 (EDT)
-
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
-
References: <85ya4b2sz9.fsf@one.net.au> <m38zwa8y57.fsf@enterprise.newedgeconcept> <3945E781.5B5E8AE9@one.net.au> <Uwx25.1302$i06.282894@ptah.visi.com> <868zw4poaj.fsf@one.net.au> <3jlnksskiseiilf54ghefu0p98meplmt6r@4ax.com> <jNT25.52918$Ft1.2937848@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>
-
Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.lisp:53734 comp.lang.dylan:12229
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:25:03 GMT, "Scott McKay" <swm@mediaone.net> wrote:
>I think the LispWorks environment basically sucks, although the
>interactivity support in it is as good as in any other Lisp environment.
>I think the Functional Dylan environment (nee Harlequin Dylan) is
>probably one of the really good environments you can find for
>any programming language. The code produced by both LispWorks
>and by Functional Dylan is really pretty damned good.
An example would be very helpful, of one of the ways LispWorks sucks, and/or
one of the ways Functional beats it.
Does Functional Objects have a lot of good programmers working full time on
Functional Developer? Or is it more a matter of having inherited it from
Harlequin and having a few programmers continue to maintain it?
To get started with it, is the free version enough, or is it better to spend
the money to get the various extras?
-- Eric S.
Follow-Ups:
References: