Re: What?

["Jason Trenouth" <address@hidden>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Rettig" <duane@franz.com>
To: <info-dylan@ai.mit.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: What?


> Rainer Joswig <joswig@lispmachine.de> writes:
>
> > In article <003f01c246ec$6f8bbc10$be8cfd3e@wilde>,
> >  "Jason Trenouth" <jason.trenouth@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTW I noticed this embedded citation but I wasn't sure who said it
> > > (Andreas?):
> >
> > This was my comment. ;-)
> >
> > > > >>> I can understand that Dylan does no longer follow above ideas
and
> > > > >>> tries to be compatible with the mainstream.
> > >
> > > Anyway I just wanted to say that perhaps Dylan didn't go far enough
for the
> > > "mainstream". From comments I've seen on code that compares Java to
Dylan,
> > > "mainstream" folks don't like the 'flashing neon' of Dylan's use of
> > > punctuation symbols.
> >
> > Don't forget that at Apple's time mainstream also meant
> > Object Pascal. Many applications on the Mac were written
> > in it, especially using MacApp. Then it was C++. Now
> > it is Objective C.
>
> I really detest all this talk of "mainstream" - the gist of such talk
> is that there is only ever one "winner", and that all others are losers.
> Since Lisp has never been "mainstream", and never will be (thank
> goodness) it will always be considered "a loser" by some.  In a way, that
> allows me to "win" within my "losing" language of choice because I'm not
> bothered by the mob psychology that comes along with "being mainstream".
> Proponents of Dylan should learn this same lesson and be content to do
> "the right thing" for their language.

Hi Duane,

I think you're reading too much into this only semi-serious thread.

Also, I don't think you have to be defensive about Lisp in this context.
Common Lisp is a great language and I've done my bit to promote it. However,
not everyone will want to use it and I'm interested in promoting good tools
and techniques to a wider community.

> I had several discussions on syntax with Dylan designers early in their
> design process.  From my point of view, it was clear that they were not
> trying to "take" Lisp anywhere, but were trying to cut new ground without
> encumberances from Lisp.

Well I'm pretty sure that one of the early motivations, among a number of
the 20+ Dylan programmers at Harlequin, was trying to sell at least some of
Lisp to more programmers.

> [1] When Steve Jobs was at Apple, it was successful.  When he left, it
> started floundering, and when he came back again, it started becoming
> successful again.  So I equate a successful Apple with Jobs, and I
> view his time at NeXT as a sabbatical and a research effort which he
> then poured back into his original Company.  NeXT was not commercially
> successful, but ended up wildly successful on a technical level in
> promoting new ideas both in hardware and in software.  The lineage
> of NeXTStep -> Rhapsody -> ... -> Cocoa is pretty clear.

Don't forget that Jobs was only really rehabilitated at Pixar. Steve's bio
at Apple fails to mention NeXT... :-j

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/jobs.html

__Jason