[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Scheme and Dylan
- To: cfry@MIT.EDU (Christopher Fry)
- Subject: Scheme and Dylan
- From: Steve Strassmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 16:17:32 -0500
- Cc: Dave Lucky <76557.704@CompuServe.COM>, info-mcl
>Date: Fri, 26 Jun 92 14:33:32 EST
>From: cfry@MIT.EDU (Christopher Fry)
>To: Steve Strassmann <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: RE: MCL Framework & Directions
>Cc: Dave Lucky <76557.704@CompuServe.COM>, firstname.lastname@example.org
>>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.
I think it's not fair to criticize Scheme that way. Scheme has different
goals than industrial popularity and it achieves those goals quite successfully.
We think Dylan has a better shot at industry because we designed it that
way from the start, on both technical and marketing grounds.