[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Mac OS X presents an opportunity for Dylan

Rob, all:

Dylan on MacOSX... bliss.

We have MacOSX at work as the main computing platform now, using Linux
for a more embedded like solution.  I'm working on Linux
though :-(

We are using ObjectiveC and Cocoa so that we can take advantage of the
RAD (rapid application development) aspects of those... a 27
line word processor for example.  I think this presents a real
opportunity for Dylan to take developers by storm.  It seems that our
development environments are limited on MacOSX right now, so Dylan would
really stand out.  I also believe MacOSX will be very
popular.


  Rob Myers <robm@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> Gabor's latest release of the d2c CodeWarrior plugin for CW 6 is Carbonized, so should work on MacOS X. I don't have 6 yet, so I
can't comment on the final version. :-( The class browsing stuff is
really   cool, and it's an excellent way to work with Dylan code.
>
> The next release of Gwydion Dylan will run out of the box on MacOS X from the command line with the developer tools installed
(and possibly some GNU tool upgrades).

So does this mean we can use the 'Aqua' GUI?


> Pidgin isn't finished and we didn't have much luck with Melange for the Classic Toolbox headers, but there are hand coded Carbon
wrappers for a usefully large subset of Carbon, covering graphics,
events, UI stuff, files and a few other areas. If anyone wants more
stuff, just say (or do).
>
> The current tarball / CVS sources of Gwydion Dylan compile on MacOS X and contain the Carbon wrappers and a couple of demo
applications, including Gareth Baker's Dylan versions of SillyBalls and a
basic Carbon application, and my OO Application framework
inspired by MOOF.
>
> We (GD) also have OpenGL bindings (they compile on X with a little tweaking for include paths), but no QuickTime or Core
Foundation yet. As those are more modern, I'd hope they'd be cleaner to
parse.

Keep up the good work.

> We can hope. They tend to get frightened by the light. :-) Dylan is cleaner and quicker to program than C++ in my experience, and its
OO model is less broken.
>
> - Rob.

Its no wonder that Dylan is quicker and cleaner than C++.  After working
with Dylan, I don't even consider C++ to be a Object
Oriented language anymore... rather a "*Hybrid* Object Oriented"
language.  This includes VB and Cobol who are also (I've heard)
hybrids now.  If used properly C++ *can* approach OOP but its entirely up
to the coder's discipline and skill to do so.  To date I have
never seen C++ OOP.  I'm sure its out there though, I've just never seen
OOP implemented in C++ in industry.

Les




Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.