Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!hammer.uchicago.edu!user
From: alain@cs.uchicago.edu (Alain Roy)
Subject: Re: But Can It Do...
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: hammer.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <alain-0203951422190001@hammer.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: None
References: <gleep-0103950847280001@192.0.2.1>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 20:22:19 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <gleep-0103950847280001@192.0.2.1>, gleep@netcom.com (Net
Bopper) wrote:

>"The measure of how good a programming language is comes down to how good
>a 'shoot-em-up' game you can produce with it."

Guess that makes Prolog worthless. Of course, C/C++/assembly aren't
exactly ideal for creating relational databases and querying them. (Not
that you can't do it, but you can whip up prototypes in Prolog in an hour,
and this is certainly worth something to a lot of people!)

Guess that makes Perl worthless. Of course, C/C++/assembly aren't nearly
as nice for doing the same regular expression matching and generating
reports and text processing...

But many people use and love Perl/Prolog/etc... Programming languages
can't be judged by their ability to do one particular task, since
different languages were designed for different purposes. A better way to
judge a language might be (and I emphasize the might) to see how well a
language fulfills the task it was created for.

Does Dylan do the job it's designers want to do?

-alain
