From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,23202754c9ce78dd X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-12 17:03:47 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!sfo2-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!not-for-mail From: tfb@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: True faiths ( was Re: The true faith ) Date: 12 Jan 2002 17:03:43 -0800 Organization: University of California, Berkeley Message-ID: References: <%njZ7.279$iR.150960@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <3c36fbc5_10@news.newsgroups.com> <4idg3u40ermnp682n6igc5gudp7hajkea9@4ax.com> <76be8851.0201101909.9db0718@posting.google.com> <9jtu3u8cq92b05j47uat3412tok6hqu1ki@4ax.com> <3C3FB4CA.14998012@nyc.rr.com> <3C40912D.6050909@staffware-spokane.com> <3C409A34.7DE61ACB@nyc.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: conquest.ocf.berkeley.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 1010883826 20436 128.32.191.90 (13 Jan 2002 01:03:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:03:46 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:24148 comp.lang.ada:18841 comp.lang.eiffel:5380 comp.lang.smalltalk:17852 Date: 2002-01-12T17:03:43-08:00 List-Id: Kenny Tilton writes: > Doug Hockin wrote: > > [> > > is Kenny Tilton] > > > Obviously the winner is any compiled (fast), GCed, GFing, MI dynamic > > > language with macros. Mature, an ANSII standard and a free > > > implementation would not hurt either. hang on... > > > > Like Dylan? > > Is Dylan mature, stable, ANSII standard? I thought those were just niceties, not necessary for the language to "win", according to you just above. > Anyway, not enough parentheses. And I like unhygienic macros. > > Dylan to me adds no value over Lisp, so why bother? Well, sure, right now. Since Dylan seems to have what you think it would take for a non-mainstream language to make it into the mainstream, if it did, that's the value it *would* offer. I'd be *thrilled* to be a Dylaner if there were a ton of Dylan jobs. You seem to have changed from talking about what "the winner" needs, to talking about what language you'd rather use. I don't think it's a good idea to change the definition of "win" so radically, at least mid-thread :) > All that said, yup, Dylan is something I would consider if Lisp did not > exist. > > Oh, damnit, I forgot. How about a MOP. Does Dylan expose the MOP so I > can metaclass? Yeah, it might have just fallen out of the winning category. I agree, a MOP is vital. > Anyway, the big quetsion is: what is the added value over Lisp to make > me give up Lisp. > > One more thing: I love editing with parentheses-aware editors. Infix > won't cut it. If you had an infix language that could be turned into a sexp form, you could probably make an editor that actually worked on its structure in the image. Not that I'm advocating this, I'm just sayin... -- /|_ .-----------------------. ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war | ,--' _,' | Wage class war! | / / `-----------------------' ( -. | | ) | (`-. '--.) `. )----'