Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)

To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
From: Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 08:19:56 -0700
References: <c29k8f7b0ya.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <20000630211245.9789@smtp.rmi.net>
Sender: owner-info-dylan@ai.mit.edu

Scott Ribe wrote:

> ...
> I think Dylan syntax is "more sensible" ONLY in practical/political
> terms. Personally, I don't mind either. But here's my own take:
>
> - C/C++ programmers work in a mode of thought that is dominated by gnarly
> ...
>
> Scott Ribe
> scott_ribe@killerbytes.com
> http://www.scott.net/~sribe
> (303) 665-7007 voice

I think the question is, why was this decision needed?

If the two syntaxes were isomorphic, why couldn't both be maintained.  And
certainly, at least for awhile, they were isomorphic.  Personally I prefer a
syntax similar to that of Ruby or Eiffel, and consider them clearer, though I
WOULD like to use {,} rather than begin,end, but this doesn't mean that
everyone needs to feel that way.

Also, Lisp syntax is much easier for machine parsers/constructors to operate
on.  If Dylan had retained the Lisp syntax, then it would be much more
suitable for mechanical generation of programs, etc.

Warning: Could not process part with given Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="charleshixsn.vcf"

Follow-Ups:

Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)

From: Rob Myers <robm@h2g2.com>

References:

Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)

From: David Bakhash <cadet@alum.mit.edu>

Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)

From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@killerbytes.com>