[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dylan (DYnamic LANguage) -- what's the deal?
China Black & Blue wrote:
>
> / By 1980, the Lisp Machine OS was written entirely in Lisp.
> / And, by 1985, the Lisp Machine's front-end processor --
>
> A real commercial success.
You said
> And maybe by 2020, Lisp and Smalltalk will be efficient enough to write
> operating system kernels and interrupt drivers in.
Scott McKay clearly said it could be and had been done, and was
technically successfull.
Commercial success wasn't mentioned by you initially.
Do you claim technically good = commercially successful? If so, what
sort of technical attributes must a language/system have that ensures
commercial viability?
Do you claim technical cruddism will necessarily = failure? OS-wise I'm
thinking MS Win 3.1
jt
>
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
> Sign up for WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK's special
> We Rob You While You Sleep Service TODAY!
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
> CACS: Collective Against Consensual Sanity v0.123
> Now a text site map http://www.tsoft.com/~wyrmwif/cacs/
> pretty? http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/5079/
> :)-free zone. Elect LUM World Dictator!
Follow-Ups:
References: