Re: Overcoming the "Dylan is Dead" belief?

Fast I/O


On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Carl Gay <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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