[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dylan rather than CL -- why?

At 11:46 PM 12/3/92 -0500, Frank Deutschmann wrote:
>In Ike Nassi's Preface to the Dylan book, he says something along the
>lines of Common Lisp being for exploratory programming with some
>delivery capability, and Dylan being aimed at delivery with some
>exploratory capability.  I would really like some clarification of
>this statement from someone with Lisp/CLOS, Scheme, and Dylan
>experience; my intent is certainly not to provoke a language war, but
>rather as Dylan is "the new kid on the block" (so to speak), I would
>like to know what its benefits are over the languages I'm experienced

I was referring to Apple's implementations of these languages in that
paragraph, not the languages per se.  It was meant to forestall any
misunderstanding that our Dylan work was meant to replace our Macintosh
Common Lisp product.

Ike Nassi                        | Applelink: NASSI
Phone: 617/374-5300              | Fax:   617/374-5353