[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Code formatter

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: Code formatter
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:43:47 -0700

On 11/13/09 12:35 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:23:55AM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> Jan believes that code formatting standards should be no more restrictive
>> than the GNU standards.
> By the way, if somebody has a compelling argument why we should
> differ from the GNU standards, I'm willing to go up against Jan.
> But before I do that, I need to be *convinced* that the
> alternative is right.
>> This same issue is relevant in the discussion about going to Lua.  Lua is
>> not GNU software.  It does use the MIT license, which is GPL compatible,
>> according to the FSF.
> That's not an issue.  The issue is that rewriting lilypond would
> take thousands of hours of work, and nobody wants to do that work.
> Besides, I really thought that the Lua-talk was a joke.

I didn't read it as a joke.  I thought it was a serious suggestion, if a bit
pie-in-the-sky.  But maybe my humor meter is just set too low.

> Some people at my university want to rewrite lilypond in Haskell
> -- again, they weren't serious about it.  The notion was just a
> "hey, wouldn't it be cool if...?" thing.
>> It seems to me that we don't have support from the core developers to move
>> to a more Windows-friendly development environment.
> That's absolutely false.  (yes, I'm going to speak on behalf of
> Han-Wen and Jan here, as well as from myself)

I don't think we disagree here.  I think I didn't write what I was thinking.
I should have said  "It seems to me we don't have support from the core
developers to switch to Windows-based tools" precisely because of the huge
time requirement to do so, and the current system that can build for
Windows, GNU/Linux, and OSX.

> The core developers have a better estimate of the enormous amount
> of work it would take to rewrite lilypond in lua, java, or
> whatever was being proposed.  Also possibly rewriting it to avoid
> using various libraries... so maybe re-implementing fontforge,
> pango, etc etc etc.
> One reason behind the switch to a new build system (waf) is
> precisely to make things easier for windows developers.  Ok, we're
> doing the doc stuff first -- but if that works well, then we'll do
> the actual executable build system as well.

Yes, I understand.  That will hopefully allow building on Windows, which
would be *great*.  I hope that it will work.

What I was addressing was the desire for a visual development environment,
which, as you correctly pointed out, would be another project the size of

> How many people are helping with that?  ... yeah, thought so.
> If anybody has a CONCRETE proposal on how to make things easier
> for non-Linux developers... along with the manpower required to
> IMPLEMENT those proposals... I'm more than willing to listen.  If
> their proposal includes a relatively minor amount of work from the
> core developers, I'm willing to do it.  If the proposal boils down
> to "hey, how about you guys rewrite it in visual basic, while I
> continue to complain about bugs and the lack of a wiki"... then
> they won't get anywhere.

I'm in total agreement here.  My post was aimed at making basically the same
point.  But you probably made it much more clearly than I did.



reply via email to

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