[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dylan (DYnamic LANguage) -- what's the deal?
Show me a "modern" OS without processes, threads, pipes, a CLI with tools,
"/" as the path separator, a folder/file filesystem, file-level security,
users and groups, sockets, C, and EMACS. :-)
UNIX is, ironically enough for a 30 year old system, the model for "modern"
operating systems. BeOS and MacOS X may layer over it, but Multi-media and
other applications sit above the core OS level, which is where the
comparison stands.
Lisp is, ironically enough for a 40 year old system, the model for "modern"
programming langauges. Look at where C++ and Java want to be and you'll see
Lisp looking confused at what took them so long. I prefer Dylan to Lisp as I
like the syntax and the emphasis of the tools it provides (personal
preference!!!), but I recognize that Dylan gains many of its benefits from
being a member of the Lisp family.
I've seen Scheme claimed as a member of the Algol family with Lisp syntax
due to its scoping rules, though. :-)
- Rob.
> From: Robert Posey <muddy_take_out_this@raytheon.com>
> Subject: 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,
Follow-Ups:
References: