[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dylan (DYnamic LANguage) -- what's the deal?
China Black & Blue wrote:
>
> / Commercial success wasn't mentioned by you initially.
>
My only point was that you at first implied it was technically
unrealistic to do OS'y things in lisp and when it was pointed out that
it could be and had been done, you ignored it and criticised it on a
diffferent front. I agree, commercial success is important and it's
right that you should raise the issue - but it's not what you asked.
> You really should spend a few days with things like POPL or PIDL
> proceedings. They are chockful of every conceivable trick to get ML et al
> as efficient as C. And C as efficient as Fortran.
I am quite aware of the technical difficulties in translating high level
semantics into a low level equivalent. The cost to the user is
efficiency of final code, amongst other things. So why use HLLs at all?
You provided the answer - under some circumstances it's commercially
viable. I waste some machine cycles, I gain some programmer cycles.
Which are much more expensive. etc. etc. etc. this argument has been
rolled out ten thousand times. It shouldn't need repeating.
What language(s) do you use in the main? is fortran one?
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!
References: