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

Re: Are there any .NET possibilities/implications for Dylan/Functional Developer?

Jason, everyone:

I think I would like to see a .NET version.  I see many elements
already in
place. From my perspective, a Unix port as being part of that, since
part of the
.Net involves servers.

I think we should collect the various ideas on how we want our
software used
in, on and through the internet, and build our our own .Net strategy. 
My
thoughts are to have separately loaded modules which can be upgraded 
through the net.  There would be some sort of version control in which
updated
modules would replace obsolete ones automatically.

One long rant *against* Dylan or Fun-O deserves an equal one *for* it.
 So
excuse me for indulging.

One thing Dylan has going for it, which meshes with internet
development is
RAD.  Everyone knows about the rapid pace of internet development.  I 
haven't found anything yet which matches the speed of development (and
learning the language too) as Dylan.  It produces inherently stable
code too... I
can't say that about C++ or even Java.  

It seems like a lot of posters assume that you are going to have to
spend a lot of time learning Dylan to be effective... That's not my
experience.  I have been
able to to learn Dylan, and produce a 'killer' commercial app in 6
months,
beating out previous efforts (both team and individual) on the *same*
project
stretching three years before I started.  I would say there is a
relative
development performance gain from a Dylan newbee (but has had 
programming experience) of three to five times over that from a good
C++
programmer.

It seems a lot of companies have a 'whatever it takes' attitude of
getting their
product to the market first.  Sometimes shipping with substantial
bugs.  So why
some companies don't have the courage to break out of the herd of
sheep
mentality in their language choice is beyond me.

If things go as I expect, I'm soon going to start a new job using
Dylan as the
primary application language.  Its an ambitious project which the
company
knows I'm capable of delivering.  I *insisted* they give me the
creative freedom
to use Fun-O Dylan.  If they can't do that, then they probably don't
have the
guts it takes to be an industry leader anyway... 

Following the path of the rest of the sheep herd will only lead to
slaughter.

Eventually I hope to have a Dylan development team... :-)  I plan on
using a
.Net approach as I understand it in their product line.

Les


Jason Trenouth <jason.trenouth@globalgraphics.com> wrote in message news:<hmn0jt4coe1pd47pq1170754jps9kfkeph@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:45:02 -0400 (EDT), "Michael T. Richter"
> <mtr@ottawa.com> wrote:
> 
> > They could ask.  I haven't commented on .NET at all because my assumption,
> > when dealing with most vendors, is if they're not talking about it they're
> > not doing it.
> 
> Well, I'll ask on behalf of Fun'O. All those interested in a .NET version
> of Dylan speak now.
> 
> __Jason
Follow-Ups: References: