Re: [dylan] The Future of Dylan: Why are we here?

I=92ve mentioned before that I came across Dylan while researching other la=
nguages in the course of knocking together one of my own. Dylan checked off=
 most of the features I was looking to adopt, and was clearly well-thought-=
out. All the concepts and aspects of Dylan mesh together like gears in a wa=
tch, supporting each other.

That is the essential feature that should be preserved: the meshed gears.

The second most essential feature (and one that is partially a consequence =
of the first) is the lack of magic. An example of this is how user-defined =
=93make=94 functions work, and the way that slot accessors are functions li=
ke any other and can be renamed on import and so on.

I also do like the minimally complex syntax. For example, using =93begin=94=
 and =93end=94 instead of =93{=93 and =93}=94 reinforces the words-and-pare=
ntheses shape of the language, and all the statements can be implemented by=
 the macro system.


On Sep 1, 2014, at 12:22 AM, Bruce Mitchener <[email protected]> wr=
ote:

> What makes Dylan special? What makes it great? What makes some of us want=
 to keep working on it, well past any hope of entering the mainstream?
> =

> What brings you here?
> =

> What are the core values of Dylan? What must, above all else, be preserve=
d?