Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp

[gclement@keps.com (Geoffrey Clements)]

In article <3jirll$r0g@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu>, sef@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott
Fahlman) wrote:

> I still use Common Lisp and like it.  In an earlier post to
> comp.lang.dylan I pointed out several areas in which CL will have an
> advantage over Dylan, at least for some time to come.  But after many
> years of hard work trying to make Common Lisp a mainstream success, I
> have given up on that goal.  I think Dylan has a better shot at
> achieving this goal -- it keeps most of what is good about Lisp while
> abandoning some bad ideas and a lot of excess baggage.  Many other
> former Lispers share this perception.  Your mileage may vary.
> 

And a lot of non-Lispers think this is true also. Some of us non-Lispers
don't like Lisp because it has too many parentheses. I don't have that
problem. I just have trouble sseing what it is good for. When you ask
people what they are using Lisp for, most answer with some form of AI
problem. I currently don't work on AI. None of the programs that I work on
need to use AI techniques. I really don't have a need for Lisp. (Please
don't flame me on this. If you have the need to explain to me why I'm
wrong or have examples send me email. I'd really like to see it.
Especially systems programming examples. Give enough detail so that I can
see why using Lisp is better than using say C.)

In Dylan I see a language that feels like a static language that has
borrowed all the best features of Lisp. This makes it attractive as a more
general programming language. A language like C makes a good application
programming language. But try writting an expert system in it. Conversely,
Lisp is a great language to write AI type programs in. But try writing a
word processor with it. It would be just as easy to write a word processor
in Dylan as it is to do in C. And it would be just as easy to write an
expert system in Dyaln as it is in Lisp.




geoff
gclements@keps.com