Andreas Bogk wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Now that Lisp seems to gain some popularity again, what's the Dylan
>> community's position wrt going back to Lisp syntax? [1]
>
> I like infix syntax a little better than s-expressions, but not so much
> that it really matters.
>
> The current Dylan syntax consumes a lot of vertical space due to the
> "end" statements, I don't like that. On the other hand, having
> assignments stick out optically is a plus, so is the non-indenting let.
>
> All in all, I'd be willing to trade the syntax if it got a sufficient
> part of the Lisp community on board. Dylan started out as an attempt to
> come up with a worthy successor to Common Lisp, and I can nail down the
> CL issues that Dylan solves. On the other hand, I can also name the CL
> features that Dylan dropped, that make Lispers avoid Dylan.
I don't think that Dylan with s-expressions would make a lot of sense as
a competitor for Common Lisp. For that, the two languages are too
similar feature-wise, and too dissimilar wrt a number of essential
design decisions. I would rather expect Dylan with s-expression to be an
interesting alternative for Scheme users, especially as compared to the
current R6RS development.
Of course, Carl Gay's response that there are more im****tant issues is a
valid point.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Do***ent Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
|
