Re: What?

[Duane Rettig <address@hidden>]

--------
    Date:  Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:16:31 +0100
    From:  "Jason Trenouth" <jason.trenouth@bigfoot.com>

    
    ----- 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.

Oh?  Interesting.
    
    Also, I don't think you have to be defensive about Lisp in this context.

It's unfortunate that you think this is about defensiveness about
Lisp.  I suppose you could have drawn that conclusion by my somewhat
self-deprecating talk about Lisp and "losing", but I assure you; that
is not about defensiveness; instead it is comparative illustration
that the Dylan community should strongly consider.  I no more think of
Lisp or Dylan as loser languages than you do.  But some will, and some
will take this thread completely seriously.  Perhaps you've mistaken
me for one of them.  Actually, the only sense in which I take this thread
seriously is the fact that some will take it seriously, and that it must
thus be seriously considered :-)

    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.

And not everyone will want to use Dylan, and the Dylan community should
learn the same lessons that the Lisp community have learned.
    
    > 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.

Perhaps that's true; I didn't talk to the Harlequin people, but I did talk
to CMU and Apple groups, both of which wanted to get as far away as possible
from Lisp as quickly as possible.
    
    > [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
    
Well of course.  Why should Apple admit to its boss' own Dirty Little
Secret?   :-)