[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Is Dylan a functional language?
Ben Wolfson (2001-10-09 00:45):
> In article <bruce-7163B3.14560209102001@news.paradise.net.nz>, "Bruce
> Hoult" <bruce@hoult.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <3BC2532B.5030707@staffware-spokane.com>, Doug Hockin
> > <dhockin@staffware-spokane.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Should Dylan show up in this list of functional languages?
> >>
> >> http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Functional/
> >
> > If Common Lisp and Scheme and OCaml are there (which they are) then
> > Dylan certainly should be too.
> >
> > Like them Dylan has all the features needed to be used in a purely
> > functional style, but doesn't force you into programming that way.
>
> If you look in the Lisp sub-page, there are Dylan links.
>
which is not the place, even a Dylan person would look for it,
if you take Doug as an example. Dylan should not be regarded as
<devilsAdvocate>just another lisp dialect, which is slow
and hard to use anyways, what with all those
parentheses and stuff</devilsAdvocate>,
but as a highly efficient language of its own.
If nothing else, Dylan needs visibility.
s.
--
Stefan Schmiedl
EDV-Beratung, Programmierung, Schulung
Loreleystr. 5, 94315 Straubing, Germany
Tel. (0 94 21) 74 01 06 Fax (0 94 21) 74 01 21
Public Key: http://xss.de/stefan.public
shhhh ... I can't hear my code!
Follow-Ups:
References: