Re: Whither Dylan?

[email protected] wrote:

>Jonathan Bachrach <[email protected]> writes:
>
>  
>
>>goo is a stripped down rethought dylan which is simpler and more
>>dynamic.  it's meant to be implementable in on the order of 10k lines
>>of code.  i did it originally as a teaching and research vehicle
>>finding it easier to teach and play with ideas in the much smaller
>>code base.  it's not a competitor.
>>    
>>
>
>Imagine that work would be underway to refurbish the Dylan standard,
>working title "Dylan 2.0".  What would you suggest to change in Dylan,
>especially given the experience with goo?
>  
>
A simple one is to adopt (as GOO did) the C3 class linearization, 
described in 
<http://www.webcom.com/haahr/dylan/linearization-oopsla96.html>.  We 
(the Apple Dylan group) would have done it ourselves, but we ran out of 
time.

Harder is to do a better job with macros.  I don't actually know what 
state they are in, but I know that the last time I looked they were 
"unfinished".  Of course GOO's sexp syntax means it doesn't have to deal 
with some of the harder issues.  Jonathan -- did your work on Java 
macros give you any ideas about how to do them better in Dylan?

Bob