From: Pixel <pixel@...>
Date: 2002-05-12T20:19:26+09:00
Subject: Re: Dylan

Aidan <ahumphreys@procoma.de> writes:

> Is anyone aware of a Dylan / Ruby comparison on the net ?

here is mine (i started some Dylan 2 days ago).


pros:
the core language itself is quite nice:
- multi-methods
- optional typing (but only checked at runtime with mindy)
- functional programming is nice


<disclaimer>
all below is tied to the use of Gwydion's Dylan.
my main problems came from the environment/libraries of Dylan.
</disclaimer>

cons:
- dylan is definitively *not* a scripting language!
  - string sugar is really poor (use "concatenate" on strings)
  - converting a integer to a string is hard
  - converting a float to a string is *real* hard
  - writing a program requires
    - having "module: ..." at the beginning of the file
    - having another file defining the various libraries+modules to
      use. For example to convert a integer to a string, you use
      integer-to-string which is in library String-Extensions, module
      string-conversions :-(
  - running a program requires running the compiler (mindycomp) with
    some quite hard parameters, then running the interpreter (mindy).
    With the dylan compiler d2c, you need a kind of makefile xxx.lid.
    Of course you still have to run the executable after compilation.
- emacs mode is poor
- error messages are really bad (worse than ruby's syntax errors :)
- ";" needed at eol between statements
- documentation is way worse than ruby's
- a lot of things on the web are dead about dylan