[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dylan rather than CL -- why?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Frank Deutschmann)
- Subject: Re: Dylan rather than CL -- why?
- From: moon (David A. Moon)
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 92 12:26:09 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Frank Deutschmann)
> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 23:46:18 EST
> 4) What about compatability with (meaning "linkage to")
> existing languages, such as Lisp, C, Scheme, Prolog? The Dylan book,
> so far as I can see, make no mention of capability for inter-language
> calls, though that would seem to be a real nice feature to have,
> especially on systems short of horsepower (where you would probably
> like to drop into C for some tasks).
We think multi-language interoperability is really important, but the
Dylan book doesn't make any provision for it. As most people who have
read the book have noticed, it is incomplete. However, we would not
want to put in multi-language interoperability in a way that required
every Dylan implementation to include a large suite of languages. It
ought to remain valid to produce a system where everything is in Dylan
and no other languages are present, for situations where that is appropriate.