From: ···@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: CMUCL/Dylan, Being pragmatic...
Date:
Message-ID: <CBpCrD.K5n.1@cs.cmu.edu>
From: ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall)
While it is true that Dylan may not be successful in drawing C/C++ programmers,
I think people doing large AI applications in CL are unlikely to switch either,
since Dylan is aimed at smaller more mainstream applications. So if perchance
Dylan IS successful, it will give us opportunities in smaller, non-AI
applications that we didn't have previously.
Dylan (at least the sort of implementation we plan) should have a *big*
advantage over CL for delivery of small, tight applications. However, I
don't see any reason why Dylan should not be just as good as CL for large
"AI-style" applications. It may even be a little bit better in some ways,
such as better integration of objects. People happy in CL may not have
incentive to move, but if they are forced to move to a "delivery language",
Dylan may provide an alterntaive that is more attractive than C or C++.
-- 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
===========================================================================
···@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu writes:
>Dylan may provide an alterntaive that is more attractive than C or C++.
That doesn't say very much. I want something a bit better than
"more attractive than C or C++". If that's all I wanted, there
are already plenty of other languages I could choose.
-- jd