[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dylan (DYnamic LANguage) -- what's the deal?
Rob Myers wrote:
>
> As I've said before: in the same way that all operating systems want to be
> UNIX, all programming languages want to be Lisp. This makes Dylan the MacOS
> X or Gnome of the Lisp family. :-)
Why on Earth would an operating system want to UNIX, maybe just maybe Linux
if it is twisted, if its UNIX its sure not to have any friends soon. From
the little I have seen Linux does not compare with BeOS or the specifications
of several new operating systems. Linux maybe be better than Win NT for
servers and hackers, and as Gnome and company develop, maybe it will be
usable by non-techies on affordable machines(i.e. have drivers for at least
most HW), but it sucks only slightly less than windoze at multi-media and
other multi-channel operations.
Muddy
>
> - Rob.
>
> > From: "Scott McKay" <swm@mediaone.net>
> > Organization: Road Runner
> > Newsgroups:
> > comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
> > Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 13:20:43 GMT
> > Subject: Re: Dylan (DYnamic LANguage) -- what's the deal?
> >
> >
> > Christopher Browne wrote in message ...
> >
> >> And actually, these days, languages with the EVAL function are getting
> >> to be a dime a dozen, as the scripting languages like Perl and Python
> >> that have grown quite popular also support introspection.
> >
> >
> > Maybe by 2010, "mainstream" programming languages will catch
> > up to c. 1965 Lisp. With any luck, by 2020, they'll manage to get
> > to c. 1985 Lisp and SmallTalk.
Follow-Ups:
References: