Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!satisfied.elf.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!sytex!smcl
From: smcl@sytex.com (Scott McLoughlin)
Subject: Re: DIM, CLIM or DK?!? (Was: Re: purify vs. gc)
Message-ID: <o975Zc1w165w@sytex.com>
Sender: bbs@sytex.com
Organization: Sytex Access Ltd.
References: <MARCOXA.95Feb6093928@mosaic.nyu.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 07:41:59 GMT
Lines: 58

marcoxa@mosaic.nyu.edu (Marco Antoniotti) writes:

> In order to be *dimly* :) succesful, the DIM alternative will have to
> be an integrated part of a "free" implementation (Gwydion, of course)
> and it should be accompanied by a good book that could smooth the
> steep learning curve that CLIM has.
> 

Howdy,
        I think that this is a very weird assertion. Lots of
computer software that is not free is very successful. Mickey
Soft's C++ framework is very successful and is licensed by other
C++ vendors (I'm not an advocate; I don't even use it. But it
_is_ a popular GUI framework). I don't see why other Dylan
implementors couldn't license a Dylan GUI framework designed
and implemented by a Dylan vendor or by a third party vendor
(for example, I believe Sun includes the commercial TOOLS.H
class library with their C++ offering).
        Frankly, while I look forward to Gwydion running on
NT, I don't think Gwydion matters one tiny bit regarding
Dylan's "success". Dylan's "success" will rely on commercial
products from commercial vendors, training and support 
contracts, commercial third party library support, hoardes
of independent contractors learning Dylan and offering Dylan
programming services, articles in popular trade rags and MIS
weeklies on the glory of Dylan, books with titles like
"Dylan in 30 Days" and "Tricks of the Dylan Gurus" published
by mass market publishers (yeah, I hate these books too, but
they contribute enourmously to the accessibility of various
products to mediocre-to-bad programmers), etc.
        I _do_ think that a _cheap_ implementation could
contribute to significantly to Dylan's success. Companies
like commercial products, but they don't want to make
"commitment sized" purchases right away. Also, individual
programmers will go out and buy a cheapo implementation
in order to learn a new skill in an emergent technology
so they can "upgrade" their job, usually by switching
companies as well. The "cheapo" implementation should be
a product of the same company that produces the "deluxe"
or "professional" version. Usually, very little functionality
is absent from the "lite" or "personal" version; just fancy
doodads like profiling, assemblers, native database access,
whatever.
        Anyway, with all the time/money Apple's dumped 
into Dylan, it would be sad if it were "successful" like
perl or tcl with a bunch of lab nerds and sysadmins leafing
through some O'Reilly book hacking on a little utility
and waiting for next weeks bug patches. The Dylan
community needs competition, products, a commercial
support network and most of all -- real customers from
real companies with lots and lots of real dollars.
        Yes, and a really nice freebie implementation
would be nice as well ;-)

=============================================
Scott McLoughlin
Conscious Computing
=============================================
