🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Dpyro4.8o9@news.hawaii.edu>, phinely@Hawaii.Edu (Peter Hinely)
wrote:

[cut]
> Some languages have typing systems that don't fit in the conventional molds.
> 
> For example in Dylan:
> 
>   define variable *my-variable* = 0;
> 
> binds *my-variable* to the integer object 0.
> 
> The binding of *my-variable* can be later be changed to refer to an 
> object of any class (i.e. floating point numbers, strings, collections, even 
> classes and functions).
> 
> You can however specify type information for variables that you declare, 
> which limits their type:
> 
>   define variable *my-variable* :: <integer> = 0;
> 
> In this case, the binding of *my-variable* can be only be changed to refer 
> to another integer.
> 
> 
> This type system allows Dylan programs to be prototyped rapidly without
> type information.  Type information can later be added in, which the
> compiler can use to optimize the program better, giving you the best of 
> both worlds:  rapid development and good performance in your final program.

All very nice. And truly Dylan sounded great when I read a short article
about it in Byte.  But isn't it dead?  What will happen to all those
Apple/IBM generated languages (Dylan, Denali, others?) as Java heats up? 
Only OpenDoc sounds viable (and very interesting).

-- 
Louis M. Pecora
pecora@zoltar.nrl.navy.mil

/* My views and opinions are not those of the U.S. Navy.
   If you want those, you have to start a war.  */