Stefan, Thanks! I was trying to find a constructive way to respond to what was said here. If anyone is curious about Dylan, we aren't close to dead, much less dead, and we are happy to talk in the proper venues. We are a quiet community busy doing good things.
- Bruce Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 12, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > Folks, this is a long-quiescent thread, let's not revive it. These kinds of > "which language is better" discussions are not terribly healthy or > constructive. > >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Páll Haraldsson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 4:00:40 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> People looking at dylan today (may be because it is mentioned whenever >>> multiple dispatch is discussed) may be inclined to evaluate it for >>> numerical programming applications and compare it with other languages in >>> the same domain. >>> While it is possible for dylan to to used in this domain with additional >>> libraries like those present in python, dylan can make a big impact in >>> the server side QQ frameworks dominated currently by Java and PHP,which >>> have grown to monstrous pro[portions in size and complexity.With its CLOS >>> style OO it can dramatically reduce code size and increase the power of >>> such frameworks. >> >> >> I thought Dylan was effectively dead.. Anyway, if not, I assumed Julia has >> all(?) of the good qualities (and none of the drawbacks?) of Dylan. At >> least, the multiple dispatch. Not too familiar with the "CLOS style OO", but >> would it or Dylan be better for anything such as GUI development? Karpinski >> commented: >> >> "If you want to build a portable GUI app and numerical work and performance >> isn't really a big concern, Python seems like a sensible, mature choice." >> Still, valid. SInce then 0.4.0 is out. And Cxx.jl that allows you to call >> C++ [GUI libraries]. What is the status now, is Julia ideal now for say, Qt >> GUI work? >> >> -- >> Palli. >
