Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!sytex!smcl
From: smcl@sytex.com (Scott McLoughlin)
Subject: Dylan Implementations
Message-ID: <XVBZsc1w165w@sytex.com>
Sender: bbs@sytex.com
Organization: Sytex Access Ltd.
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 01:41:32 GMT
Lines: 28

Howdy,
        OK - so there's been a fairly interesting, non-trivial
mature discussion going on regarding Lisp implementations, Lisp
vs. C, what Lisp _could_ be vs. current implementations, etc.
        What is actually going on with Dylan?  Are we going to
see: Inexpensive, Commercial implementations for Popular Desktop
operating systems -- Windows,Chicago,Mac,OS/2 ? In other words,
the kind of thing we can "learn at home" and/or "evaluate at
work".  Are there multiple vendors working on the thing, so that
companies don't view the language as "proprietary". Are there
folks out there writing books on Dylan for relatively popular
consumption. Does anyone have a book contract? (e.g., "Tricks
of the Dylan Masters" or "Dylan for Dummies").
        I'm _not_ being "skeptical" or asking "rhetorical
questions". I want to understand more about the "political
economy" of dynamic languages. If the answer is "Yes" to the
above questions, I'd like to here how this is possible with
Dylan even though these possibilities never actualized with
say Scheme or Common Lisp.  If the answer is "No", I'd like
to hear about why not. Why is Dylan (and/or other dynamic
languages) not a good base language definition for the next
Visual Basic or Turbo Pascal or Zortech C++ type of language??
(implementation, that is).

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