[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Dylan rather than CL -- why?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Dylan rather than CL -- why?
- From: email@example.com (Brent W. Benson)
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 92 08:26:02 -0500
- In-reply-to: Frank Deutschmann's message of Thu, 3 Dec 92 23:46:18 EST <9212040446.AA05341@panix.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Frank Deutschmann) writes:
> 3) Why seperate the developmet environment from the language?
Here are two reasons I feel are important, one of which you
o delivery - you don't want to deliver the environment. At
some point you need to deliver an application and make the
break between environment and language. Why not specify that
break up front? While some Lisp systems provide ways to trim
down a Lisp image, it's not the same as producing a .o file
that can be linked with other languages that follow certain
o flexibility - it's not clear that the same development
environment will work on every machine that one might program
in Dylan. Requiring a certain type of environment might
restrict the spread of the language (sounds like a virus or
I would highly recommend the article "Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How
to Win Big" by Richard Gabriel of Lucid. It's available in LaTeX form
by anonymous ftp from bongo.garnet.cs.cmu.edu in /pub/good-bad-win.
He talks about "the right thing" approach to designing systems. This
might correspond to producing the best possible Dylan with a perfect
integrated environment. This project takes years to complete, but is
wonderful when it is done. The other approach is "worse is better."
This corresponds to providing a Dylan that is easy to implement, is
flexible, and works well with other languages. Not quite as
satisfying, but it's out there and people are using it to solve real
problems. He ends up describing a next-generation Lisp that is very
close to Dylan. Great article.
Harris Computer Systems