[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp

In article <D58KBE.s0@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <D584q4.2E8@cee.hw.ac.uk> andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk (Andrew Dinn) writes:
>>I can attack Common Lisp without defending Dylan.
>I can attack Common Lisp too.  Indeed, there are many things I
>would rather were different.

Guys, we can *all* attack Common LISP; I've been doing it noisily for
years. But even I have at last come to the conclusion that if we kill
Common LISP now, we've probably killed LisP for all real world
commercial purposes. If you're happy to do that I can't stop you.

But I'd counsel you not, at least until we've got something which
suits us *as LisP hackers* to replace it with. Perhaps Dylan will be
that thing, but I'm suspicious of anything which moves *away* from
LisP syntax with the idea of making things better.

------- simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)

	'graveyards are full of indispensable people'