[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: C++ vs. Scheme

From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Scheme
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:10:16 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313)

David Feuer wrote:
On 4/4/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:

The reason for having C++ is historical.

I'm not certain that using Scheme for everything will lower hackability
of the code, eg. I'm still not as fluent in Scheme as in C++ --with all
its shortcomings.  Also, having opaque C++ objects is convenient,
because it makes it easy to enforce invariants and maintain encapsulation.

If I were writing LilyPond, from scratch, alone, I'd probably write it
in Standard ML.  Unfortunately, not a lot of hackers are familiar with

Well, me too ;) i'd probably use it as an excuse to learn ocaml or similar. However, it's not the case, so we'll have to live with bits of C++.

that.  As for opaqueness, that's certainly possible in Scheme, and
implementations like PLT provide lots of object-oriented kinds of
things if you're into that.  What I'd really like to see is more
functional (in the FP sense) management of Stencils.  set!s make me

Yes, me too.

Feel free to rewrite them more functionally.


Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden -

LilyPond Software Design
 -- Code for Music Notation

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]