From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$) Date: 2000/07/01 Message-ID: <3171446179158559@naggum.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 641190844 References: <57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2F42B8951.48F3FDB0A810D9E0@lp.airnews.net> <58rolsg17q7154fdf6dq5l038rbbnl10jt@4ax.com> <3171354053463029@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 962457419 18380 195.0.192.66 (1 Jul 2000 13:16:59 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jul 2000 13:16:59 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.dylan * Jason Trenouth | Apart from the syntax, want do you think of the semantics and | the feature set? I thought I said that: I concluded that Dylan was a waste of time. What kept me interested in it for a while was the Lisp-like syntax. I didn't find the semantics and the "feature set" sufficiently attractive on their own, and knowing how fixed-grammer languages evolve (rampant keyworditis and logorrhea), didn't appear to be something worth investing in at the time. However, it has been six years, so I ordered a couple books on Dylan from Functional Objects to see if there are any good ideas I am more likely to pick up now. (Incidentally, I didn't see any non-Windows offerings, which means I'm not inclinced to investigate further, as I simply don't deal with criminals, such as Microsoft.) #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.