From: ···@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Future of CMU Common Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <CB7zC0.B11.1@cs.cmu.edu>
From: ····@festival.ed.ac.uk (J W Dalton)
I see your point, but Dylan doesn't just resemble Lisp: right
now, it's a dialect _of_ Lisp.
Sticks and stones. I assert that Dylan is a separate language, and that
people should judge it on its own merits (once it is finished). You are
free to call it a Lisp dialect if you like, but please do so quietly. :-)
By the way, Dylan will soon have a primary syntax that doesn't look at all
like Lisp.
I'm worried that abandoning CMU CL
will make things worse for the sort of dynamic language I want rather
than better, unless someone else keeps CMU CL going.
Continuing with CMU CL development as before was not an option for us.
However, we will continue to keep CMU CL alive (if not growing and
propagating) until we have something better to replace it with.
-- Scott
===========================================================================
Scott E. Fahlman Internet: ····@cs.cmu.edu
Senior Research Scientist Phone: 412 268-2575
School of Computer Science Fax: 412 681-5739
Carnegie Mellon University Latitude: 40:26:33 N
5000 Forbes Avenue Longitude: 79:56:48 W
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
===========================================================================
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 01:31 EDT
From: ···@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu
From: ····@festival.ed.ac.uk (J W Dalton)
I see your point, but Dylan doesn't just resemble Lisp: right
now, it's a dialect _of_ Lisp.
Sticks and stones. I assert that Dylan is a separate language, and that
people should judge it on its own merits (once it is finished). You are
free to call it a Lisp dialect if you like, but please do so quietly. :-)
By the way, Dylan will soon have a primary syntax that doesn't look at all
like Lisp.
And presumably throws the macro baby out with the syntaxtic bathwater.
Pardon my cynicism, but if that's the case, BFD.
···@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu writes:
> From: ····@festival.ed.ac.uk (J W Dalton)
> I see your point, but Dylan doesn't just resemble Lisp: right
> now, it's a dialect _of_ Lisp.
>Sticks and stones. I assert that Dylan is a separate language, and that
>people should judge it on its own merits (once it is finished). You are
>free to call it a Lisp dialect if you like, but please do so quietly. :-)
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to agree that Dylan is not a variety of
Lisp so long it is one. I didn't accept claims that Scheme wasn't
Lisp or that proposed ISO Lisp standards didn't conflict with Comon Lisp
because they were for "different languages", and I guess I'm going
to be consistent, being a somewhat stubborn sort. Besides, if we can't
call things "Lisp" in comp.lang.lisp, where can we?
On the other hand, I don't care whether we call it a dialect or
a separate language in the Lisp family. I was happy with the
Lisp family formulation in the ISO disputes, and I think it's
just as useful now.
This is not in any way to suggest that Dylan shouldn't be
judged on its own merits; but then I say the same about all
varieties of Lisp.
-- jd
···@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu writes:
> From: ····@festival.ed.ac.uk (J W Dalton)
> I see your point, but Dylan doesn't just resemble Lisp: right
> now, it's a dialect _of_ Lisp.
>By the way, Dylan will soon have a primary syntax that doesn't look at all
>like Lisp.
That's why I wrote:
Even the addition of a different syntax wouldn't change that ...
right after saying Dylan was a dialect of Lisp. When I teach
Common Lisp, I usually ask what language a fragment like the
following is from:
IF type IS "rpr"
THEN next()
ELSE WHILE expression();
type IS "comma"
DO next() OD;
IF type IS "rpr"
THEN next()
ELSE err("unclosed argument list")
FI
FI;
It's "Lisp phi" ("> 1.5, < 2, and irrational"), a Lisp variety
invented by Alex Colvin. It is just one example of a Lisp with a
syntax that doesn't look at all like Lisp.
-- jd