[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
scheme/dylan (was Compilation on SPARC)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: scheme/dylan (was Compilation on SPARC)
- From: email@example.com (John Lewis)
- Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 01:53:33 EDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: Scott Schwartz <email@example.com>
> Subject: Compilation on SPARC
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Goldman) writes:
> why hasn't anyone else?
> My (quite possibly incorrect) observation is that, for most people's
> purposes, an interpreter adequate. Most people who use scheme seem to
> be either
> 1) doing research on programming languages. unless they are researching
> optimization techniques there is no point in writing a compiler at all,
> and if they are, only one platform is necessary.
> 2) teaching intro cs classes
> 3) using scheme as an embedded command language.
> Only a very small number of scheme developers seem interested in using
> scheme do to actual systems and application programming. (If I'm
> wrong about that, post lots of messages here!) I wonder if an
> advantage of Dylan will be that its user community will have different
> goals than the scheme community.
I agree with this. There should be a language suitable
for programming language research and teaching the issues of
programming language design. Such a language needs to be free to
change, and to adopt constructs which may not be efficient at
the present time, in the view of some (this is how I view scheme's
numerical system!). These characteristics are the opposite of those
desired of a 'real' or 'utility' language, i.e., stability and efficiency.
Dylan is aimed at developing 'real' applications, so the burden on
scheme is now reduced. I hope Dylan catches on. Mail to info-dylan
from Rob MacLachlan indicates that a high performance Dylan implementation
is being developed at CMU. Given the CMU role/experience with Common Lisp
and the possible efficiency of Dylan, I am greatly looking forward to this.
Although CL, scheme, and dylan should probably be considered as
having more differences than e.g. C and Pascal, thanks to their macro
systems it should not be too hard to port moderate amounts of
code to Dylan when it becomes available.
j.p.lewis/nec c&c research