From: Phil Stubblefield Subject: Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$) Date: 2000/06/30 Message-ID: <395D0225.4FFEE339@rpal.rockwell.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 640968010 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2F42B8951.48F3FDB0A810D9E0@lp.airnews.net> <58rolsg17q7154fdf6dq5l038rbbnl10jt@4ax.com> <3171354053463029@naggum.no> <3171366678290484@naggum.no> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.uswest.net 962403921 63.225.190.193 (Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:25:21 CDT) Organization: Rockwell Science Center MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:25:21 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.dylan Erik Naggum wrote: > > * "Scott McKay" > | > | Translation: I implemented Lisp and Lisp environments for 12 years. > | I worked on Dylan for 5 years. I'm back to using Lisp again. Guess > | what? I like Dylan better, syntax and all. > > Yeah, we need more personal testimonials. And the alternative is... impersonal ad brochures? Seriously, I'd love to hear Lisp vs. Dylan comparisons from someone with Scott's amount of Lisp experience. I just browsed the subject tree at Amazon.com, and of the three books listed within "Dylan Programming," one was a tutorial, one a reference manual, and the third had the comment, "Incomplete and riddled with errors." I'd rather trust the judgement of someone like Scott, who I know *gets* Lisp. Scott, I second David Bakhash's interest in more details from you. Phil Stubblefield Rockwell Palo Alto Laboratory 206/655-3204 http://www.rpal.rockwell.com/~phil p...@rpal.rockwell.com