Re: Overcoming the "Dylan is Dead" belief?

I've long wanted to make Dylan better for "scripting".  With the right
libraries it could compete really well in that space, and then also have
the added advantage of providing a smooth transition to the large projects
that "scripts" often turn into.

Building out better OS interfaces has been on my list for a long while.

I thought some of the comments in
http://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.htmlabout
how they get most of their converts from languages like Python and
Ruby rather than C++ were apropos.  I see Go as being in a similar space to
Dylan, broadly speaking.

I'm sometimes tempted to change the name, but I feel like it would be
artificial unless we did it because we changed the language significantly.
 New syntax, anyone?  :-)

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Bruce Hoult <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't think the name can or should be changed.
>
> It would be nice to pop up out of nowhere as the hot new language, but I
> think Dylan is actually missing what is necessary to do that, mostly in
> terms of a modern easy to use library of data structures and OS interfaces.
>
> Ironically, the niche that Dylan could have owned has been taken by even
> more dynamic (but more restrictive) and dead slow languages such as Python
> and Ruby.
>
> One huge advantage that Dylan does have, potentially, is that something
> much closer to what Python and Ruby people are used to can be done without
> becoming incompatable with existing Dylan code, simply by leaving the
> existing "use Dylan" (or common-Dylan) alone, and use a new name for a new
> set of data structures (strings mostly) and *possibly* different control
> constructs and method definition macros etc (though I like the existing
> ones well enough).
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Bruce Mitchener <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Repeatedly, I have run into people who thought Dylan was long gone and
>> dead.  People often think it was an Apple-only project and that when Apple
>> killed Apple Dylan, it was the fatal blow and that there wasn't anything
>> available.
>>
>> This has been a common refrain in conversations, when we do a release
>> ("Wow, I didn't know Dylan was still around."), and when others bring it up.
>>
>> It has been suggested a number of times that we should consider renaming
>> things to divorce ourselves from the past and allow people to get to know
>> us under a new identity.  That'd be a lot of work though and would have
>> issues with things like the DRM and DPG which we can't go and rename.  I
>> also think that having the history is valuable at times in and of itself.
>> Dylan had grand origins and it needn't shy away from them, perhaps.
>>
>> What can we do? What should we do?
>>
>>  - Bruce
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
>> is
>> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
>> hackers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
>
>

_______________________________________________
hackers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers