[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Are there any .NET possibilities/implications for Dylan/Functional Developer?
Jason Trenouth <jason.trenouth@globalgraphics.com> writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:30:02 -0400 (EDT), Barry Margolin
> <barmar@genuity.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <t4d1jtgi5vc3hh1ckh1p7uls87vntmnek0@4ax.com>,
> > Jason Trenouth <jason.trenouth@globalgraphics.com> wrote:
> > >Dylan is arguably:
> > >
> > > Scheme-ish semantics ( single namespace, some conventions )
> > > Common Lisp-ish object system ( generic functions, MI, etc )
> > > Pascal-ish syntax ( infix, begin/end )
> > > Smalltalk-ish philosophy ( OOP all the way )
> >
> > Isn't this likely to make it difficult to do a .NET version of Dylan?
> > There was a recent thread in comp.lang.lisp about a .NET version of Common
> > Lisp. I didn't read it all, but the concensus seemed to be that Lisp's
> > semantics don't map well onto .NET. So while you could do the port, you'd
> > either have to leave things out or it will be horribly inefficient. I'd
> > expect the same thing for Dylan.
>
> Yes, Duane R. of F. described why they had rejected a direct port. However,
> other folks have done ports of advanced languages eg Eiffel so it might
> merit a look for Dylan.
I'd be interested to see some hard numbers for performance differences
between equivalent advanced language implementations, one native and
one under .NET. I would be surprised if there were less than a 10X
performance difference.
--
Duane Rettig Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/ (www)
1995 University Ave Suite 275 Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: (510) 548-3600; FAX: (510) 548-8253 duane@Franz.COM (internet)
References: