C# : The new language from M$

40 views
Skip to first unread message

Marc Battyani

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
Micro$oft has found that C++ is too hard for their average customers and VB
is for dummies so they made a simplified C++ (à la Java, but without Sun...)
with a GC, direct mapping between objects and XML etc...

I quote : "More than anything else, C# is designed to bring rapid
development to the C++ programmer"

Now we will see Java/C#/lisp threads instead of Java/lisp ones... sigh.

you can see the Intro here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/nextgen/technology/csharpintro.asp

Marc Battyani


The Glauber

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
In article
<57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2...@lp.airnews.net>,

"Marc Battyani" <Marc_B...@csi.com> wrote:
> Micro$oft has found that C++ is too hard for their average customers
and VB
> is for dummies so they made a simplified C++ (à la Java, but without
Sun...)
> with a GC, direct mapping between objects and XML etc...
[...]


This is incredible! They've just reinvented Javascript! (What's next,
the wheel, perhaps?)


--
Glauber Ribeiro
thegl...@my-deja.com
"Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Eugene Zaikonnikov

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to

"Marc Battyani" <Marc_B...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2...@lp.airnews.net...
[snip]

> Now we will see Java/C#/lisp threads instead of Java/lisp ones... sigh.
>
Guess that # is an abbrevation for ++++ :)

--
Eugene.

Marco Antoniotti

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to

The Glauber <thegl...@my-deja.com> writes:

> In article
> <57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Marc Battyani" <Marc_B...@csi.com> wrote:
> > Micro$oft has found that C++ is too hard for their average customers
> and VB
> > is for dummies so they made a simplified C++ (à la Java, but without
> Sun...)
> > with a GC, direct mapping between objects and XML etc...
> [...]
> > you can see the Intro here:
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/nextgen/technology/csharpintro.asp
>
>
> This is incredible! They've just reinvented Javascript! (What's next,
> the wheel, perhaps?)
>

You are sooo wrong. They have "embraced and extended" Java, C++,
JavaScript and Intercal.

Cheers

--
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================

Jason Trenouth

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:00 +0300, "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by>
wrote:

That was a bit flat. :-j
Surely Microsoft have just made a hash of something again? :-j

__Jason

Joe Marshall

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com> writes:

Well, I wouldn't want to *pound* this into the ground, but there are a
*number* of other difficulties with the language.

`C-octothorpe' sounds more like an obscure mollusc than a computer
language.

Paolo Amoroso

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:00 +0300, "Eugene Zaikonnikov"
<vik...@cit.org.by> wrote:

> Guess that # is an abbrevation for ++++ :)

What about this?

C# --> C sharp --> See Sharp


Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/

Philip Lijnzaad

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to

> That was a bit flat. :-j

D-flat, perhaps? Or should that be abbreved to Db :-P
Philip
--
Ban GM foods! Long live the Mesolithicum, pesticides and starvation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, lijn...@ebi.ac.uk \ European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+44 (0)1223 49 4639 / Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton
+44 (0)1223 49 4468 (fax) \ Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD, GREAT BRITAIN
PGP fingerprint: E1 03 BF 80 94 61 B6 FC 50 3D 1F 64 40 75 FB 53

Jochen Schmidt

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:00 +0300, "Eugene Zaikonnikov"
> <vik...@cit.org.by> wrote:
>
> > Guess that # is an abbrevation for ++++ :)
>
> What about this?
>
> C# --> C sharp --> See Sharp

Or simply C-Hash (pronounced like "cash") ;-)


--
cya,
Jochen Schmidt
j...@dataheaven.de
http://www.dataheaven.de

David Bakhash

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
well, it's a step in the right direction. maybe in some ways it's
what Dylan was (though, I don't know enough about Dylan to know for
sure). I guess that Java didn't cut it, likely because Java _is_ a
LCD language in many ways (in the MS writeup about C#, they say:

``...there are languages today that raise productivity by sacrificing the
flexibility that C and C++ programmers often require. Such
solutions constrain the developer too much (for example, by
omitting a mechanism for low-level code control) and provide
least-common-denominator capabilities. They don't easily
interoperate with preexisting systems, and they don't always mesh
well with current Web programming practices.''

So, what they're referring to is that there are new technologies
(e.g. XML) and they want their new programming language to have
features which facilitate interoperability. But that's the big
problem! they keep (re)inventing languages with new features that are
specific to what they're doing right then and there. So today the
thousand-dollar buzzword is XML. Surely tomorrow it will be something
else. Will they create yet another language every 5 or 10 years? And
will that window start becoming narrower and narrower? Or will they
actually just create a language that can be adapted over time? My
opinion is that they're going to get screwed just *because* they're so
insistent upon holding onto C stuff. Am I the only person here who
cringes at the thought of C embedded inside C#, in which assembly code
may be doubly embedded? Will my brain realistically have an easier
time reading C# when I know that at any time it can turn into C, and
then back?

I think this new thing may be great for Windows programmers. Good for
them. But for me it's just more noise -- another language to talk
about, and think about, and hear about. And worst yet, people who
program in it will likely _never_ have the luxury of being able to
detatch themselves easily from what will become MS legacy. I bet that
even if C# makes it 10X easier to get some XML application off the
ground using MS Windows, it'll be 100X harder to port to Unix than if
the original implementor used straight C, and that's exactly what MS
probably wants (and all the power to them -- they're not stupid).
As usual, those who don't look at the big picture will eventually be
doomed. Of course, when doom happens, many of them will be retired,
and so it won't be their problem.

dave


Russell Senior

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
>>>>> "Eugene" == Eugene Zaikonnikov <vik...@cit.org.by> writes:

Eugene> Guess that # is an abbrevation for ++++ :)

No, they are just trying to get used to looking through prison bars.

--
Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
sen...@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
extremely unusual.' ''

David Bakhash

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
Marco Antoniotti <mar...@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:

while it may be true that this language is more than Javascript, it's
certainly is _not_ about "embracing" anything (though "choking" or
"suffocating" do kinda come to mind). As I said in my other post,
this language is a step forward, but I was really talking about GC;
otherwise, it's incredibly stupid for _anyone_ to use it in the long
term. I certainly hope not to see people using this language. If I
have to go to a site and work with this garbage, or turn down an
opportunity because I don't understand C#, and don't want to, then
(yet again) Microsoft will have landed another one on me. I hope this
thing flops just like Visual J++ flopped. If you think about it, what
they're doing is a very similar ploy: they're likening this language
to (V)C++, trying to cajole programmers into thinking that it's just
some kind of extended, modified, and better-in-some-way langauge than
C++. While I've had some satisfaction with several MS products
(e.g. NT, SQL Server, Word), I believe that they often do act with a
degree of dimentia. I wonder how unlimited their developer pool is
sometimes. I mean, between their office suite, Exchange Server, a
bunch of OSs (including this .NET thing), when does it end? And, as
the language of .NET, C# (to me) just means that the .NET thing is
likely to be a huge failure. I read the PR hype from

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/topics/f2k/whitepaper/default.asp

and I'm having trouble buying it. C# doesn't help me think that this
.NET thing will be the "revolution" in computing that they're
claiming.

Marco. Embraced? What are you talking about?

dave

The Glauber

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
In article <m3wvjbv...@cadet.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
[...]

> bunch of OSs (including this .NET thing), when does it end? And, as
> the language of .NET, C# (to me) just means that the .NET thing is
> likely to be a huge failure. I read the PR hype from
[...]


Yes, having invented Javascript, it's just natural that they now
invented the Internet, to go with it. I think Al Gore should sue these
people!


(This has nothing to do with Lisp, whatsoever!)

Robert Monfera

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
The Glauber wrote:

> This is incredible! They've just reinvented Javascript! (What's next,
> the wheel, perhaps?)

You mean, the Innovation does not require static type declarations? Do
you have a URL that says this?

Robert

Marc Battyani

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to

David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:m3wvjbv...@cadet.dsl.speakeasy.net...

> I certainly hope not to see people using this language.

You don't know the "convicing" power of M$. They will start to put
functionnalities only usable by C# and VB in their OS. They have done the
same thing for COM. All the Shell functionnalities have COM interfaces only.
So even if you don't like COM (a poor design at least...) you have to use
it. They are currently doing the same thing with COM+.

I hope the OS will be separated from M$ soon!

This has an impact on the other languages like Lisp. When the OS API were C
functions a simple FFI was enough. As C was a low level language is was
rather easy. But now you can't even use those functionnalities in C. So it
will be harder in Lisp too.

Marc Battyani


David Bakhash

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
"Marc Battyani" <Marc.B...@fractalconcept.com> writes:

> This has an impact on the other languages like Lisp. When the OS API were C
> functions a simple FFI was enough. As C was a low level language is was
> rather easy. But now you can't even use those functionnalities in C. So it
> will be harder in Lisp too.

I think it'll be harder for the implementors, but for application
developers, it'll probably still be just as easy. I believe that the
FFI will hold under such circumstances. Just consider that foreign
functions even now work similarly for foreign Fortran, C, C++, etc. But
the real moral of the story (for me) will be to simply abandon Microsoft
as a platform for developing applications. I guess over these past few
years I got wedded to Windows and developing on it. Between Cygwin,
Xwin32, WinCVS, ntemacs, SecureCRT, MS Word, Dragon, and other stuff, I
just started to prefer it as my _personal_ OS in many ways. But on
Linux, I can pay the same for Common Lisp, and life is much easier:
there's no VC++, no COM, no very stupid stuff. And for GUI stuff, I've
heard that there are now Lisp bindings for GTK, and maybe even KDE,
though I don't know what kinds of licenses these have, and how they
would affect writing commercial applications. But what I do know is
that Windows, more and more, is started to get out of control. While I
may not like the MFC, it seemed to do wonders for the commercial
software market, and many applications were very usable. Who hasn't
noticed the uniformity among windows apps that Unix lacked for a long
time? (KDE mostly does the right thing, of course). Apparently, not
everything that MS created was bad. VC++ developers seemed to get
things done. And, many applications under windows that require getting
into the guts of the OS were made to work (namely, vmware, Xwin32,
Exceed, and a bunch of others that don't come to mind right now).

And so one of these MS buzzwords (COM, DNA, DCOM, OLE,...) makes it
possible, and maybe even feasible to do stuff such as copy a table from
a spreadsheet application and just past it into Word, or link it in, or
whatever, and in a way that makes subsequent applications able to do so
with the same objects. So, they get a pat on the back, at least from
me. But it only goes so far. I will avoid C# and it's .NET mother as
best I can, just as I will avoid using particular commercial Common Lisp
implementations as long as unfair licensing practices prevail.

Basically, these software guys are like little children, abusing the
system, suing each other like little tattle-tales, hoarding their
technology, trying so hard to be unfair monopolies, and not to mention
their ridiculous licensing agreements. and so whenever Bill starts
crying just because the gov't notices that his corporation has not been
acting in accordance with the rules that monopolies must abide by, I
think, get this tyrannous child out of here. You take the real big
boys, like GM, or GE. They understand where they are, and how to play
fairly for the most part. You take MS, and what I consider to be
companies that behave similarly in the space that affects me more
directly, and you just wonder. They just don't get it.

dave

David Bakhash

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.com> writes:

you can read it yourself at:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/nextgen/technology/csharpintro.asp

they use the term "type-safe". I don't know for sure what they're
talking about. If you want to find out more about the language, there's
a download, but for god's sake it's an .EXE file! Should one have to
run an executable to learn more about a language? Also, when I read
about it, I was on a Linux box, and _couldn't_ run that EXE if I'd
wanted to. So, if it's the same for you, you'll have to go based on
what's in that URL, and on other press releases.

dave

Jason Trenouth

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
On 27 Jun 2000 10:25:21 -0400, David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> well, it's a step in the right direction. maybe in some ways it's
> what Dylan was (though, I don't know enough about Dylan to know for
> sure).

No. C# is nothing like Dylan _is_ (present tense). :-j

In Hollywood mogel vernacular "Dylan is Scheme meets Common Lisp meets
Smalltalk meets Pascal":

Scheme's basic Lisp-1 semantics.
Common Lisp's object system and condition system.
Smalltalk's objects-all-the-way-down philosophy.
Algol/Pascal ish syntax.

Basically, Dylan is very Lispy and easy for Schemers and Lispers to understand.

However, Dylan aims for more straightforward application delivery so it
separates the application from the environment and provides less in the way of
reflection, introspection, and application-controlled compilation.

You can still interactively compile and redefine individual methods etc, and
then experimentally invoke them inside your running application, but this all
happens under the control of the IDE via a tether to the separate application.

The separation of application and means that when development has finished it
is already in a standalone redistributable form (EXE, DLL, OCX, etc) with only
the libraries it needs.

From a Common Lisper's point of view Dylan may seem to pander too much to the
masses and have too many useful/interesting bits cut out, but conversely
Lispers may also find it has less historical baggage and is more easily able to
produce standalone applications and components that interact with the 'modern'
world.

__Jason

Hannu Koivisto

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

| Also, when I read about it, I was on a Linux box, and _couldn't_
| run that EXE if I'd wanted to. So, if it's the same for you,

You don't need to run it. Just install unzip and then extract the
.doc with `unzip clanref.exe' (it's a self-extracting zip
archive).

--
Hannu

Eugene Zaikonnikov

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
"Russell Senior" <sen...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:861z1ij...@coulee.tdb.com...

> >>>>> "Eugene" == Eugene Zaikonnikov <vik...@cit.org.by> writes:
>
> Eugene> Guess that # is an abbrevation for ++++ :)
>
> No, they are just trying to get used to looking through prison bars.
>
:) This gesture (forefingers and middle fingers of both hands crossed) in
Russian means exactly the prison bars. Another issue is that the 'sharp' has
no verbal equivalent in Russian. I wonder which nickname C# will receive
here :)
And I just noticed that MS Outlook Express strips out C# from header for
some reason when replying (see the subject).

--
Eugene.


Erik Naggum

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
* David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu>

| If you want to find out more about the language, there's a
| download, but for god's sake it's an .EXE file!

It's one of those nifty self-extracting archive things for Windows
victims deprived of understanding this "high" techology.

Fortunately, you can apply unzip to it and not have to execute the
file. Doing so yields a .DOC file which is a lot more useful than
an .EXE file, fer sure! You now need _more_ Microsoft shitware to
read the goddamn _text_. I used the demented StarOffice suite, and
tried to print this "document" to paper, the only medium it should
have been in in the first place, which failed miserably, of course.
The PostScript file looks reasonable, and ghostview can display it,
but no PostScript printer _anywhere_ will print it for me. Sigh.

But C# looks like what comes out of a brilliant mind at gun-point.

#:Erik
--
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.

The Glauber

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
In article <c29k8f9...@nerd-xing.mit.edu>,

David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
[...]
> If you want to find out more about the language, there's
> a download, but for god's sake it's an .EXE file! Should one have to
> run an executable to learn more about a language? Also, when I read

> about it, I was on a Linux box, and _couldn't_ run that EXE if I'd
> wanted to.
[...]

You could run a Windows emulator in Linux?

(loop (format t "~A" ":-)"))

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
* "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by>

| Another issue is that the 'sharp' has no verbal equivalent in
| Russian.

Huh? It's from the musical note system: flats and sharps.

| And I just noticed that MS Outlook Express strips out C# from header
| for some reason when replying (see the subject).

Amusing.

David Bakhash

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com> writes:

> Basically, Dylan is very Lispy and easy for Schemers and Lispers to understand.

I personally don't agree. That's only my opinion.

> However, Dylan aims for more straightforward application delivery so it
> separates the application from the environment and provides less in the way of
> reflection, introspection, and application-controlled compilation.

application delivery in ANSI CL is kinda non-existent, but not so with
what's out there. It is true, of course, that you don't have too many
options with CL as far as delivery goes.

> From a Common Lisper's point of view Dylan may seem to pander too much to the
> masses and have too many useful/interesting bits cut out, but conversely
> Lispers may also find it has less historical baggage and is more easily able to
> produce standalone applications and components that interact with the 'modern'
> world.

I looked into it. I found Perl syntax easier to grasp. Maybe Dylan is
just too modern (for me). Anyway, when I look at other languages, I
don't do so looking to replace the Old one; I just like to see Lispish
stuff implemented in different ways, and with different syntaxes and
such.

Anyway, getting back to C#. I compared it to Dylan because:

1) native code compilation
2) GC
3) C-ish syntax with some Java-like stuff thrown in there

that's all. I should have enunciated that more clearly. sorry about
that.

dave

Barry Margolin

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
In article <31711976...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> wrote:
>* "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by>

>| And I just noticed that MS Outlook Express strips out C# from header
>| for some reason when replying (see the subject).
>
> Amusing.

I think OE strips out everything up to the first ":" in headers. I believe
this is part of their internationalization support: when replying, it
inserts whatever the local equivalent of "Re:" is, and it removes anything
up to the first ":" on the assumption that it may be a foreign equivalent
of "Re:".

This is actually somewhat relevant to this thread, since they're both
examples of how Microsoft feels the need to set their own standards.

--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

Johan Kullstam

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:

> * "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by>
> | Another issue is that the 'sharp' has no verbal equivalent in
> | Russian.
>
> Huh? It's from the musical note system: flats and sharps.

yes. in swedish C# is "ciss". the -iss suffix means sharp but i am
not sure if there is a proper swedish word for the "#" per se.
russian could have a similar scheme.

> | And I just noticed that MS Outlook Express strips out C# from header
> | for some reason when replying (see the subject).

lol

--
johan kullstam l72t00052

vsync

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:

> Fortunately, you can apply unzip to it and not have to execute the
> file. Doing so yields a .DOC file which is a lot more useful than
> an .EXE file, fer sure! You now need _more_ Microsoft shitware to
> read the goddamn _text_. I used the demented StarOffice suite, and

I used "strings", and although I missed some diagrams and punctuation,
it was enough to get the general idea of the language. It's got a few
things Java doesn't have, and it's missing a few things Java does
have, but on the whole, it's just a Java knockoff. Nothing special
here, folks; move along...

--
vsync
http://quadium.net/ - last updated Fri Jun 23 23:28:05 MDT 2000
Orjner.

Christopher Browne

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Erik Naggum would say:

>* "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by>
>| Another issue is that the 'sharp' has no verbal equivalent in
>| Russian.
>
> Huh? It's from the musical note system: flats and sharps.

There already was a "D-Flat;" Al Stevens presented several variations
of this in Dr Dobbs Journal a couple of years ago; it involved a
combination of:
a) Interpreted C++-like language and
b) Text mode CUA tools for OS/2 and Windows.

It's possible that the point of "C#" is purely subversive, of MSFT
tying (uncorrected typo; it just seems right...) to have their own
Java "successor."

But I suspect it may not be solely "political;" it may be reflective
of people starting to see that Java is not entirely adequate, and
starting to look for the "next thing" to migrate to.

If that be the case, it's somewhat sooner than I expected; I thought
Java would zenith a bit later. If this in fact be the case, I find it
_appalling_ that a hacked-up version of the Java design is being
suggested as the Next Step.

Alternatively, it may be a Very Good Thing, supposing it causes big
enough disasters as to make people actually step back and think before
simply rehashing BCPL and Simula again...

>| And I just noticed that MS Outlook Express strips out C# from header
>| for some reason when replying (see the subject).
>

> Amusing.
>
>#:Erik

Which would make your ":Erik" into an "optional argument," rather than
a symbol... There's something strangely amusing about that.

Someone at Microsoft probably figured that stripping out some
characters from headers would somehow "improve security," which is
about par for the course...
--
aa...@freenet.carleton.ca - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lisp.html>
When replying, it is often possible to cleverly edit the original
message in such a way as to subtly alter its meaning or tone to your
advantage while appearing that you are taking pains to preserve the
author's intent. As a bonus, it will seem that your superior
intellect is cutting through all the excess verbiage to the very heart
of the matter.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail

John Markus Bjorndalen

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:

> Fortunately, you can apply unzip to it and not have to execute the
> file. Doing so yields a .DOC file which is a lot more useful than
> an .EXE file, fer sure! You now need _more_ Microsoft shitware to
> read the goddamn _text_. I used the demented StarOffice suite, and

> tried to print this "document" to paper, the only medium it should
> have been in in the first place, which failed miserably, of course.
> The PostScript file looks reasonable, and ghostview can display it,
> but no PostScript printer _anywhere_ will print it for me. Sigh.

I don't have any printers where I am now, but ps2pdf on the PostScript
file that StarOffice (5.1 with the "SGENPRT PostScript" printer
driver) generated something that xpdf and Acroread ate. Maybe those
would generate printable PostScript for you.

I know, I could have fired up VMware, but I haven't picked up
PDFWriter yet.

> But C# looks like what comes out of a brilliant mind at gun-point.

Have you seen this quote?

And an even more cunning route was at hand, as the redoubtable
maintainer of the Java site Cafe Au Lait, Rusty Harold Elliot points
out. Elliot, a long time critic of Sun's licensing tactics, notes: "If
Microsoft wanted to really challenge Java, they should have gone with
Python. I just don't believe it's possible for any major advances in
language design to be made while restricting oneself to the mistakes
Kernighan and Ritchie made 30 years ago."

It's at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/11606.html. The author
even found a reference to Cool in the language reference.

In case you want to look at what Elliot wrote:
http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ (search for June 23).

--
// John Markus Bjørndalen

Bruce Hoult

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
In article <drw65.286679$VR.42...@news5.giganews.com>,
cbbr...@hex.net wrote:

> But I suspect it may not be solely "political;" it may be reflective
> of people starting to see that Java is not entirely adequate, and
> starting to look for the "next thing" to migrate to.
>
> If that be the case, it's somewhat sooner than I expected; I thought
> Java would zenith a bit later. If this in fact be the case, I find it
> _appalling_ that a hacked-up version of the Java design is being
> suggested as the Next Step.
>
> Alternatively, it may be a Very Good Thing, supposing it causes big
> enough disasters as to make people actually step back and think before
> simply rehashing BCPL and Simula again...

I sure hope so.

And Dylan is finally ready, just in the nick of time. I hope :-)

-- Bruce

Marc Battyani

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to

"John Markus Bjorndalen" <jo...@cs.uit.no> wrote in message
news:hvhfadz...@johnmnb.cs.uit.no...

> And an even more cunning route was at hand, as the redoubtable
> maintainer of the Java site Cafe Au Lait, Rusty Harold Elliot points
> out. Elliot, a long time critic of Sun's licensing tactics, notes: "If
> Microsoft wanted to really challenge Java, they should have gone with
> Python. I just don't believe it's possible for any major advances in
> language design to be made while restricting oneself to the mistakes
> Kernighan and Ritchie made 30 years ago."

I think that they consider that Python is a scripting language and they have
already 2 such ones with VBScript and JavaScript. They have a marketing hole
for a Java class language and they try to fill it with C#. They try to do
the same recipe that Sun used with Java.

Marc Battyani


Eugene Zaikonnikov

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
"Johan Kullstam" <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:uitutn...@res.raytheon.com...

> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:
>
> > * "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by>
> > | Another issue is that the 'sharp' has no verbal equivalent in
> > | Russian.
> >
> > Huh? It's from the musical note system: flats and sharps.
>
> yes. in swedish C# is "ciss". the -iss suffix means sharp but i am
> not sure if there is a proper swedish word for the "#" per se.
> russian could have a similar scheme.
>
Right. In Russian it would sound like 'see diez', so the sharp sign alone
probably must be spelled diez. Yuck!
Anyway I bet that C# will get some other name here.

--
Eugene.

Simon Brooke

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:
>
> > Fortunately, you can apply unzip to it and not have to execute the
> > file. Doing so yields a .DOC file which is a lot more useful than
> > an .EXE file, fer sure! You now need _more_ Microsoft shitware to
> > read the goddamn _text_. I used the demented StarOffice suite, and
> > tried to print this "document" to paper, the only medium it should
> > have been in in the first place, which failed miserably, of course.
> > The PostScript file looks reasonable, and ghostview can display it,
> > but no PostScript printer _anywhere_ will print it for me. Sigh.

You may find that wvware <URL:http://www.wvware.com/> - which is GPL
- will make a more-or-less reasonable job of rendering it into
HTML. Not brilliant HTML, you understand, but something you can at
least read.

--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

Jason Trenouth

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
On 28 Jun 2000 13:15:47 -0400, David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com> writes:
>
> > Basically, Dylan is very Lispy and easy for Schemers and Lispers to understand.
>
> I personally don't agree. That's only my opinion.

Hmmm. Maybe you just found the transition from Common Lisp to Scheme confusing
if you haven't used Scheme before? A single namespace and using bindings
instead of symbols can seem strange at first I think.

e.g.

;; Lisp

(defun test ()
(process-args 'foo 'bar '(baz quux)))

(defun process-args (func context args)
(loop for arg in args
do (funcall func context arg)))


// Dylan

define function test ()
process-args( foo, #"bar", #( baz, quux ) );
end;

define function process-args ( func, context, args )
for ( arg in args )
func( context, arg );
end;
end;

..

> Anyway, getting back to C#. I compared it to Dylan because:
>
> 1) native code compilation
> 2) GC
> 3) C-ish syntax with some Java-like stuff thrown in there

Well, Dylan really isn't C-ish syntax. No braces (except in macro definitions),
no casting, postfix type declarations, and very different (Lisp/Scheme-like)
identifier conventions. Unfortunately, from the point of view of promulgating
the language, Dylan's syntax looks very alien to many C programmers.

__Jason

Reini Urban

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
Marc Battyani wrote:
>This has an impact on the other languages like Lisp. When the OS API were C
>functions a simple FFI was enough. As C was a low level language is was
>rather easy. But now you can't even use those functionnalities in C. So it
>will be harder in Lisp too.

Well, you are able to use COM interfaces without any COM via a plain
FFI. But admitted, it is a mess and next to impossible to use with
callbacks. See for example the Corman Lisp sources or the Inside OLE
book for the C way.
With simple call outs it's a double indirection, but I shrudded when
thinking of implementing COM call-ins (aka "Events") via a plain FFI.
Hope that I don't have to do that somewhen.

Thanksfully there are only a few MS COM-only API's, most provide a
double-interface (early and late binding) where you can call-out to the
C/C++ functions directly without the double-indirection, or safearray
and BSTR conversion. With C++ you only have to find the demangled names.
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/news/faq/autolisp.html

Rob Myers

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
The syntax looks alien relative to curly-bracket languages, but the
semantics are pretty similar. I find that as long as you admit that it
looks different, then explain how it's similar, you can get people to map
their C syntax to Dylan syntax pretty easily.

I got used to Dylan's syntax from a C background, I still haven't got used
to Lisp's.

int CPlusPlus()
{
return 1;
}

(defun lisp (x)
1
)

define method dylan() => ( result )
1;
end method dylan;

- Rob.

Bruce Hoult wrote:

> In article <kpamlscdjl89ihfhs...@4ax.com>, Jason Trenouth


> <ja...@harlequin.com> wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately,
> > from the point of view of promulgating the language, Dylan's syntax
> > looks very alien to many C programmers.

--
Rob Myers - ro...@h2g2.com H2G2 - http://www.h2g2.com/
"Don't talk to sociologists. Social practice has no sociological
content."A&L
http://www.robmyers.org/ http://www.gwydiondylan.org/


The Glauber

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
In article
<57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Marc Battyani" <Marc_B...@csi.com> wrote:
> Micro$oft has found that C++ is too hard for their average customers
and VB
> is for dummies so they made a simplified C++ (à la Java, but without
Sun...)
> with a GC, direct mapping between objects and XML etc...
[...]


Predictably, there's a lot of discussion about this in the Java group.
It does look like the "writing on the wall" for Java, and it would
certainly be, if it wasn't for IBM having rescued the language from
being just a Sun plaything. Now, looking at IBM's track record against
MS, things still look bad for Java. Too bad, Java is a step in the
right direction (or towards Pascal? :-)).

I wonder how many people out there have programmed Java only through a
MS IDE (Visual J-something)? You hire some of these programmers, put
them in front of a Unix terminal, and they are useless.

It's bothersome to have to learn the new language-du-jour, but in the
end it's all the same, right? If you are able to become a good
programmer, this skill should be on a higher level than the language
used to express it. (But don't program in VB if you can avoid it!)

glauber

s...@usa.net

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
In article <9622072...@cpl2500.cit.org.by>,

"Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by> wrote:
> Another issue is that the 'sharp' has
> no verbal equivalent in Russian.

this is from the musics lingo.
[si diez] is the translation.

Michael Livshin

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
s...@usa.net writes:

> In article <9622072...@cpl2500.cit.org.by>,
> "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by> wrote:
> > Another issue is that the 'sharp' has
> > no verbal equivalent in Russian.
>
> this is from the musics lingo.
> [si diez] is the translation.

[do diez] is the translation, actually.

--
only legal replies to this address are accepted.

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Joe Marshall

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
cbbr...@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne) writes:

> > Amusing.
> >
> >#:Erik
>
> Which would make your ":Erik" into an "optional argument," rather than
> a symbol... There's something strangely amusing about that.

I thought #:Erik nearly always denoted a required argument. I should
have read the documentation.

Lyman Taylor

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
Bruce Hoult wrote:
...
> This was, of course, in the days before Java, Perl, and C#.

Err... C# certainly. :-)
Work on Dylan probably predates Java (the language formerly know as Oak)
only by short amount of time, if at all. I seem to recall hearing about
Oak and Dylan around the same time. However, the current infix
syntax does not. (Dylan had Lisp/Scheme like syntax at first).
Perl (1987)... I don't think so. At least "Perl" the replacement for "awk".
(as opposed to Perl that caught the internet wave).

I think it would more accurate that the Dylan syntax was likely more a
direct "anti" reaction to the baroque language C++. That language was
in the "cures all ills" phase that Java is in now about that time. I
don't think the designers wanted to take the herculean leap from
"scheme like" to "c++ like". Languages like Ada and Modula-3 had
more compatible syntatical goals than C/C++.

The commonality that C/Dylan share is along the respective
Algol ancestory lines. Which for both is kind of far back. ;-)
However, it is enough, with modest effort, for folks predisposed
to C syntax to latch onto.

Lyman

Lyman Taylor

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
Rob Myers wrote:
...
> .... but the
> semantics are pretty similar.

Huh???

Dylan C
reference based semantics value based semantics
(never make a copy unless ( always make copies)
explicity asked for)

operators are function calls operators tend to map to opocodes

most "statements" are expressions statements don't return values.
(e.g.
1 == if test then a else b end; )

There are not totally unsimilar, but there are some definately some stuff
that can throw a C programmer into confusion.

The presented code fragments were almost entirely "syntax", IMHO.
The "last expression, function's value" sematics are matched in
dylan and lisp whereas the C requires explicit control change.

I will grant that people present their most negative visceral reactions
to "alien" syntax. Second only to "alien" editors. :-) They seem to
much more forgiving of difference as long as it malleable enough to
tweaked to what they want. (if necessary, a big enough hammer to
fit round peg into square hole.
if test then temp := a else temp := b end;
1 == temp;
Or the classic "FORTRAN written in C". )


Lyman

oo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
In article <hvhfadz...@johnmnb.cs.uit.no>,

>Elliot, a long time critic of Sun's licensing tactics, notes:
"If
> Microsoft wanted to really challenge Java, they should have gone
with
> Python.

If Microsoft had wanted to kill Java, they should have acquired
Harlequin Dylan. Dylan is leaps-and-bounds better than Java, and
Harlequin had a good compiler already. Harlequin Dylan (now Functional
Developer) even supports COM/OLE and makes it easy to use.

oo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
In article <c29g0px...@nerd-xing.mit.edu>,

David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com> writes:
>
> > Basically, Dylan is very Lispy and easy for Schemers and Lispers to
understand.
>
> I personally don't agree. That's only my opinion.
>

I regard Dylan as a descendant of Lisp... basically a
fully-object-oriented and cleaned-up Lisp. I think that any Lisp
programmer should pick up Dylan very, very easily.

Marc Battyani

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to

<oo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jg8qk$q6h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> If Microsoft had wanted to kill Java, they should have acquired
> Harlequin Dylan. Dylan is leaps-and-bounds better than Java, and
> Harlequin had a good compiler already. Harlequin Dylan (now Functional
> Developer) even supports COM/OLE and makes it easy to use.

I agree that Dylan is better than Java, but he didn't said that MS wanted to
have a better language than Java (there are already quite a lot of them). He
said "if MS wanted to really chanllenge Java...". Almost nobody believes
that Java succeeded on its technical merits.

Marc Battyani

Kent M Pitman

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
s...@usa.net writes:

> In article <9622072...@cpl2500.cit.org.by>,
> "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by> wrote:
> > Another issue is that the 'sharp' has
> > no verbal equivalent in Russian.
>
> this is from the musics lingo.
> [si diez] is the translation.

Oh, it's that kind of '#'... I had just assumed C# was the British
English name and that it would be called C$ in American English...
emphasizing the use of C technology at the cost of $ or #, whichever
M$ thinks they could extort from us at the time. ;-)

Christopher Browne

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Kent M Pitman would say:

How about a third option?

Pronounce it "C-Hash."

Which would mean that Microsoft is telling us that they are "making a
hash" of C...
--
cbbr...@ntlug.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html>
"The problem with the current Lisp Machine system is that nothing ever calls
anything anymore." -- KMP

Bruce Hoult

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
In article <kpamlscdjl89ihfhs...@4ax.com>, Jason Trenouth
<ja...@harlequin.com> wrote:

> Well, Dylan really isn't C-ish syntax. No braces (except in macro
> definitions), no casting, postfix type declarations, and very

> different (Lisp/Scheme-like) identifier conventions. Unfortunately,


> from the point of view of promulgating the language, Dylan's syntax
> looks very alien to many C programmers.

I suspect that the guys tasked with coming up with the infix syntax were
concerned that if it looked *too* C-like then people would expect it to
have C semantics.

This was, of course, in the days before Java, Perl, and C#.

-- Bruce

Christopher Browne

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when oo...@my-deja.com would say:

>In article <hvhfadz...@johnmnb.cs.uit.no>,
>>Elliot, a long time critic of Sun's licensing tactics, notes:
>"If
>> Microsoft wanted to really challenge Java, they should have gone
>with
>> Python.
>
>If Microsoft had wanted to kill Java, they should have acquired
>Harlequin Dylan. Dylan is leaps-and-bounds better than Java, and
>Harlequin had a good compiler already. Harlequin Dylan (now Functional
>Developer) even supports COM/OLE and makes it easy to use.

Now _THERE_ is a frightening idea.

Mind you, if Microsoft had "bought" Dylan, this would give the Lisp
family a Rather Large shot in the arm, in terms of "credibility
amongst rather credulous people." Whether _that_ is a good thing
or not is anybody's guess...
--
cbbr...@ntlug.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
?OM ERROR

Paul Foley

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:48:59 GMT, Kent M Pitman wrote:

> s...@usa.net writes:
>> In article <9622072...@cpl2500.cit.org.by>,
>> "Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by> wrote:
>> > Another issue is that the 'sharp' has
>> > no verbal equivalent in Russian.
>>
>> this is from the musics lingo.
>> [si diez] is the translation.

> Oh, it's that kind of '#'... I had just assumed C# was the British
> English name and that it would be called C$ in American English...
> emphasizing the use of C technology at the cost of $ or #, whichever
> M$ thinks they could extort from us at the time. ;-)

Heh. Unlikely -- as far as I know, pronouncing "#" as "pound" is a
purely American thing (I've never heard anyone else use that...
everyone else uses "lb" for pounds (avoirdupois; if they use pounds at
all). I have used British computers that had the pound (sterling)
sign on the shifted "3" key, where American keyboards have the hash,
and used the same code point in the character set, but that can't be
related (surely!?))

--
Nomina stultorum in parietibus et portis semper videmus. -- Cicero

(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(#\@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))

Simon Brooke

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
Bruce Hoult <br...@hoult.org> writes:

> In article <kpamlscdjl89ihfhs...@4ax.com>, Jason Trenouth
> <ja...@harlequin.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, Dylan really isn't C-ish syntax. No braces (except in macro
> > definitions), no casting, postfix type declarations, and very
> > different (Lisp/Scheme-like) identifier conventions. Unfortunately,
> > from the point of view of promulgating the language, Dylan's syntax
> > looks very alien to many C programmers.
>
> I suspect that the guys tasked with coming up with the infix syntax were
> concerned that if it looked *too* C-like then people would expect it to
> have C semantics.

Isn't there also an (alternative) prefix syntax for Dylan? That must
be even more lisp-like (says Simon, never having tried it).

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

Jason Trenouth

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:33:34 GMT, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

> Isn't there also an (alternative) prefix syntax for Dylan? That must
> be even more lisp-like (says Simon, never having tried it).

No. That was ditched a long time ago.

__Jason

Bruce Hoult

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
In article <m2u2ebz...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>, Simon
Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

> Bruce Hoult <br...@hoult.org> writes:
>
> > In article <kpamlscdjl89ihfhs...@4ax.com>, Jason Trenouth
> > <ja...@harlequin.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, Dylan really isn't C-ish syntax. No braces (except in macro
> > > definitions), no casting, postfix type declarations, and very
> > > different (Lisp/Scheme-like) identifier conventions. Unfortunately,
> > > from the point of view of promulgating the language, Dylan's syntax
> > > looks very alien to many C programmers.
> >
> > I suspect that the guys tasked with coming up with the infix syntax
> > were
> > concerned that if it looked *too* C-like then people would expect it to
> > have C semantics.
>

> Isn't there also an (alternative) prefix syntax for Dylan? That must
> be even more lisp-like (says Simon, never having tried it).

Oh, absolutely. A lot of simple Scheme textbook programs can be
converted into prefix Dylan simply by doing a global s/lambda/method/
e.g.

(define fact (lambda (n) (if (< n 1) 1 (* n (fact (- n 1)))))) // Scheme
(define fact (method (n) (if (< n 1) 1 (* n (fact (- n 1)))))) // Dylan

Then the differences start. Scheme has a shortcut "(define (fact n) ...
)" whereas Dylan has "(define-method fact (n) ... )". Dylan lets you
replace args in the argument list with (n <integer>) as a type
declaration. Dylan has a built-in object system (and everything is an
object). But they are very, very similar.

But neither current implementation of Dylan supports the prefix syntax.
At all. It's pining for the Fjords. It's an ex-syntax. It's bleedin'
snuffed it.

-- Bruce

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
* Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com>

| No. That was ditched a long time ago.

Yet, curiously, that was about the same time I decided Dylan was a
waste of time.

#:Erik
--
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.

Scott McKay

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to

Erik Naggum wrote in message <31713540...@naggum.no>...

>* Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com>
>| No. That was ditched a long time ago.
>
> Yet, curiously, that was about the same time I decided Dylan was a
> waste of time.
>

If infix syntax was not what you expected, please alter your expectations.

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.

Jason Trenouth

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
On 30 Jun 2000 11:40:53 +0000, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> wrote:

> * Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com>
> | No. That was ditched a long time ago.
>
> Yet, curiously, that was about the same time I decided Dylan was a
> waste of time.

I appreciate that Lispers may dislike Dylan's compromises and miss some of the
omitted features. Apart from the syntax, want do you think of the semantics and
the feature set?

__Jason

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
* "Scott McKay" <s...@mediaone.net>

| If infix syntax was not what you expected, please alter your expectations.

Oh, please.

| 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.

My point was that the decision to drop the Lisp-like syntax was
pretty darn stupid considering it was a selling point towards a
community that was told "you fine people don't matter, anymore".

David Bakhash

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
"Scott McKay" <s...@mediaone.net> writes:

> 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.

if it's okay, and you feel you can expound on this (i.e. if you can
point out things in the syntactic differences), plesae do. I know that I
was averse to Dylan's syntax. But I also know the following:

when people know and love and understand something -- whatever that
something may be -- and then make a serious change (like Lisp->Dylan),
it's always hard to go back. I think I wrote a post about his
phenomenon not too long ago. Basically, it's always hard to go back to
something that breaking away from was work. It's the same thing that
makes it hard for me to live in Long Island after growing up very
sheltered and struggling to live in my own in Boston.

Of course, for me it was Pascal -> Common Lisp, and so going back to
that is hard for me. It's really all about what you see and when you
see it. I try to look at these things with as open a mind as I can, and
I simply cannot for the life of me see how the Dylan syntax is more
sensible. I'm not counter-arguing; I just want to know details -- that
is, if you feel you can do it justice. Admittedly, I have only a
cursory understanding of Dylan syntax, and so the best I can do is say
"I just don't like it as much" or something useless like that. I do
think that Dylan syntax bites, at least for me. Syntax is _extremely_
important to many programmers because there are many times when several
languages are "equivalent" in many respects, and so in the end it comes
down to which one's syntax one is most comfortable with.

Since you have lots of experience with both languages, would you agree
that the CL syntax is more expressive? more malleable? More uniform?
I would, but if you feel otherwise, I'd like to know why.

dave

David Bakhash

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
oo...@my-deja.com writes:

> In article <c29g0px...@nerd-xing.mit.edu>,
> David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > Jason Trenouth <ja...@harlequin.com> writes:
> >
> > > Basically, Dylan is very Lispy and easy for Schemers and Lispers to
> understand.
> >
> > I personally don't agree. That's only my opinion.
> >
>
> I regard Dylan as a descendant of Lisp... basically a
> fully-object-oriented and cleaned-up Lisp. I think that any Lisp
> programmer should pick up Dylan very, very easily.

don't get me wrong. I see the similarities, and an kinda map Dylan back
into Lisp. It's going the other way that's the problem, and since I'm
kinda stuck thinking in Common Lisp, this is just too hard. In fact,
maybe it's the fact that they share enough in common that hurts me.
It's almost interference. I program quite fluently in Perl, and that's
not too similar to CL at all, except no pointers and GC.

Dylan did clean up some things, but they were mostly minor to me.
"very, very easily" makes me feel a bit slow.

dave

Carl L. Gay

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> * "Scott McKay" <s...@mediaone.net>
> | If infix syntax was not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
>
> Oh, please.
>
> | 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.
>
> My point was that the decision to drop the Lisp-like syntax was
> pretty darn stupid considering it was a selling point towards a
> community that was told "you fine people don't matter, anymore".

It's pointless to spend any effort selling to 1% of the market.
Reality sucks.

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
* "Carl L. Gay" <si...@thecia.net>

| It's pointless to spend any effort selling to 1% of the market.

Then it's clearly even more pointless to spend any effort "selling"
anything to you, only one in 6 _billion_ people, such as a much
better attitude towards "reality" than you currently have, both in
terms of suckiness and in terms of this mythological _one_ market.

#:Erik
--
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
* Carl L Gay wrote:

> It's pointless to spend any effort selling to 1% of the market.

> Reality sucks.

I wonder how big Dylan's market is compared to Lisp's (not a
rhetorical question, I'd like to know).

--tim

Phil Stubblefield

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> wrote:
>
> * "Scott McKay" <s...@mediaone.net>
> |
> | 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 ph...@rpal.rockwell.com

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00