Quoting Michael Vanier (firstname.lastname@example.org): > The only examples of this I've seen that are reasonably compelling are > common lisp and Dylan, the latter having been designed explicitly to allow > two universes to cooperate. Which two universes are that? (Dylan certainly brings together ideas from different languages, and I could imagine that Dylan and Common Lisp would play together better most other languages. But that is precisely because the Lisp and Dylan languages are not two entirely different universes, they are related.) [...] > Bottom line: don't take lightly the problems involved with crossing > language boundaries. That is certainly true. > Possibly languages of the future will all be like > Dylan, with a "scripting" version and an "application" version which are > deliberately designed to interoperate seamlessly. Designers of the > programming languages of the future have got their work cut out for them. What is that scripting version of Dylan? Given Dylan's similarity to Lisp, I would expect Dylan programmers -- if there were any left :-( -- to think like Lisp programmers: Why use scripting if your own language is dynamic enough already? David -- Schrei es ihnen ins Gesicht! Soylent Gruen ist Menschenfleisch!
Description: PGP signature