🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <FISCHER.92Dec15014923@thor.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk
(Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
>>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Cracauer (cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de)
>Martin> I would like to know, if FSF will release a 'Dylan' implementation.
>Martin> (Dylan is a language like CLOS, invented by Apple).
[...]
>Martin> I know, FSF don't like Apple, but isn't dylan 'free enough' to be
>Martin> supported ? 
>
>Well, write a GNU Dylan inetrpreter/compiler/system and donate it to
>the FSF and things will look much more promising.

I believe that Dylan is trademarked by Apple.  That's why the free
implementation of a language based on the Dylan Language Manual is called
"Thomas" (or somesuch).  Dylan most certainly *not* a free language.  I
recall some mention of certification of language implementations by Apple.
The Dylan Language Manual ain't all that great and I don't find anything in
the language that makes it worth locking myself to Apple and if you want a
free version, somebody has already done it so why spend the time and effort?

I, for one, believe that Dylan is mostly just a tool for Apple to get
people locked into their universe by promising all sorts of
performance/abilities/etc. on hardware that has yet to be shown (Newton)
which has already been majorly backpeddled on because Apple knows they
can't deliver.  Sculley has made all sorts of pronoucements about the
future of the palmtop/PDA/PIM/whatever and he has neither the hardware
(though I believe they have cut the specs again to try and get the cost
down) nor the software (a Dylan based OS, I believe, which certainly is not
proven) to fulfill those big words so he has stated that the market will
now arrive (surpise :-) at about the same projected dates for a real,
cheap, version of Newton (which, of course, gives the OS/Dylan people time
to gain converts and make the thing actually work efficiently, etc.).

Sorry for the tangent,
			John

P.S.	I speak for myself.