Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!dorite!ts1-ind-15.iquest.net!user
From: fritza@iquest.net (Fritz Anderson)
Subject: Re: Prefix syntax
Message-ID: <fritza-2003951613300001@ts1-ind-15.iquest.net>
Sender: news@dorite.use.com (News Admin)
Organization: Himself
References: <v02110103ab93395b6241@[155.50.21.58]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 21:13:30 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <v02110103ab93395b6241@[155.50.21.58]>, gclements@keps.com
(Geoffrey Clements) wrote:

> >Look, you and Apple can prefer whatever you prefer.  But stop
> >promoting Dylan by attacking Lisp.
> >
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I also don't like the comparisons to C++, C, SmallTalk, etc. Dylan is a new
> language that combines benfits from all of these languges, and others, and
> hopefully doesn't have too many of their deficiencies. (Real or percieved.)
> Let Dylan stand on it's own merits. Stop the comparisons and work with your
> language of choice. Lisp, C, C++, Self, Dylan, or what ever. All these
> languages have their place in this world. Use the language best suited to
> your needs and stop the petty bickering.
> 
> >-- jeff

[Apologies for the lost citations to earlier postings]

Programmers don't often get to pick languages unilaterally.  The people
who pay programmers see choice of language as a decision that influences
the risk to which their capital is put. A client who wants to have source
code at the end of the project, so bugs can be fixed and the effort on
version 1 can be carried over to version 2, does not want to find that all
his money has gone into code that nobody can read any more, that nobody
can write, and that nothing can compile.  These are not trivial fears, nor
are the people who entertain them stupid.

Like anybody else, decision makers will draw on their experience.  Their
experience is that C++ is good enough; they many even believe it is a
conservative extension of a well-known language into the uncertain world
of object-orientation.  You and I know that these are old and hollow
assumptions, but most people don't.  Their experience is that LISP is
difficult to understand, and carries a let-them-eat-cake attitude toward
hardware, performance, and budgets.  Can the manager _learn_ to read
LISP?  Sure.  Are his views on LISP culture stereotypical?  Yes.  But he
has the money, and you have to pretend, at least, to respect him.  Who
knows, he may even deserve to be respected as a fellow-human anyway.

A Dylan advocate, to get a hearing, has to explain _why_ C++ isn't good
enough.  That is hard to do if one is only supposed to flatter C++.  He
has to show he understands the concerns about LISP readability, skill
base, performance, and culture; and he has to show how Dylan addresses
those concerns.  Denying the validity of the audience's judgments is a
poor idea.

Dylan's advocates don't have the luxury of saying "Hey kids! Let's start
programming!  And here's something neat to program with!"  Instead, they
have to get across the message, "Here is a tool so much better than what
you have, that it is worth abandoning millions of dollars' worth of
library code and training."

Happy talk won't carry the day; there have to be comparisons.

-- 
Fritz Anderson         Indianapolis, Indiana   317-257-2227            fritza@well.sf.ca.us   fritza@iquest.net       WT9T
I've begun to suspect that large portions of the Universe -- possibly including history itself -- do not properly reward fair play, and I tell you I'm pretty worked up about it.
