[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Kelly Murray)
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 03:37:45 GMT
- Organization: University of Florida Department of Mathematics
- References: <email@example.com>, <1995Mar6.firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
In article <email@example.com>, sef@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Fahlman) writes:
>> If the CL->Dylan mapping isn't 100%, maybe we could
>> push hard to get Dylan changed so it would be.
>> Push all you like. It won't happen. Having a Dylan-in-CL for some
>> transitional period is not a good enough reason to preserve all the
>> accumulated small irritations that have built up in Lisp over the
My apologies if this has already been hashed over 1m times.
It's my opinion that non-CL users would not be irritated
by such things as nil == false, etc. It's only CL users who really
care about these things. I mean if they can deal with C++ ...
I've keep no secret of my opinion that a CL-subset is the best
way forward. I agree the new-Dylan syntax is right for the unsophisticated,
especially if there is a CL->dylan mechanical translation for delivery.
But leaving CL behind for the sake of getting rid of "small irritations"
just seems, well, foolish. I can't help but think the task of creating
a whole new language is too ambitious, even for Apple Computer,
unless it really offers something that can't be done with another one,
which isn't going to be the case, unless Apple really makes it proprietary.
Just my opinion -- I guess even one M1 tank can't push hard enough..
In any case, a Dylan-on-CL would be great. Perhaps the Scheme-on-CL
implemenation would be a good place to start.