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: hs@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer)
• Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <c29k8f7b0ya.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <20000630211245.9789@smtp.rmi.net> <3964A39C.D8B28375@earthlink.net> <3964AE4B.6F733A54@h2g2.com>
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:12412

In article <3964AE4B.6F733A54@h2g2.com>,
	Rob Myers <robm@h2g2.com> writes:
> ...
>> If the two syntaxes were isomorphic, why couldn't both be maintained.  
> 
> Resources for one, and splitting the user base for another. The latter
> in particular would be harmful.

but is it true?  afaik guile tries to provide two syntaxes (schem and
something C-like, though I forgot the name).  does anybody have
experience with a guile project where both syntaxes were used?

> ...

-- 

Hartmann Schaffer

• 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>
• Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
• From: Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
• Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
• From: Rob Myers <robm@h2g2.com>

• Prev: Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
• Next: Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread