[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: MCL Framework & Directions
- To: Steve Strassmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: RE: MCL Framework & Directions
- From: cfry@MIT.EDU (Christopher Fry)
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 92 14:33:32 EST
- Cc: Dave Lucky <76557.704@CompuServe.COM>, email@example.com
>Dylan, however, is not aimed at the Lisp market. It's aimed at the current
>market for static languages. We would definitely consider Dylan a failure
>if it only stole support from the lisp community and had no impact on
>the rest of the world. We think there are compelling reasons for a static
>programmer to seriously consider switching to Dylan, and we'll do everything
>we can to get them to do so!
Straz, I hope you're right. But why does Dylan have a better shot at it than
Scheme, which is VERY similar to Dylan in many technical and philosophic ways?
Scheme has been around now for 10? years and obviously hasn't won many converts from C.
There's even been a Scheme on the Mac for many years that didn't take off.
You could say that Dylan has objects built in, and Scheme doesn't. But a decade ago,
objects weren't a big deal for C hackers. So the analogy is C'ers switching to Scheme
vs C++'ers switching to Dylan.