[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Roadmap to lily code

From: Nicolas Sceaux
Subject: Re: Roadmap to lily code
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:38:41 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)

Darius Blasband <address@hidden> writes:

> On the positive side, I guess - Nicolas might contradict me here -

Had you not written that, I would not have answered :-p

> that Python would have enabled far more people to hack with
> the internals., as the procedural-OO paradigm is more popular than
> functional programming. 

Is Scheme really preventing users from hacking LilyPond's internals? I
didn't write a single line of Scheme code before using lily (except in
school). Just bookmark guile's reference manual and read the files in
lilypond's scm/ directory. Its syntax is the simpliest, the names are
intuitive (Scheme is said to be "cleaner" than Common Lisp in that
respect), what else? (Please, no parentheses debate).

> Besides, as far as I know, I would assume that Python provides enough
> functional programming primitives for the cases where you truly needed
> them.

This is not really the point, as I'm not sure one can say that the
Scheme parts are written in a "functionnal" style in LilyPond. There are
side effects in some parts, some parts are OO, some parts have a more
functionnal taste... It's clearly multi paradigm, which make me agree
with Pedro: it looks like Common Lisp would have been more appropriate
than Scheme. I often feel like reinventing the wheel when writing guile
code (no LOOP, what a pain!). To dissipate some possible
misconceptions: if Scheme is said to be a "functionnal" language,
Common Lisp is certainly not only that. It is a multi-, or rather an
omni-paradigm language. So "parentheses" does not imply "functionnal

Speaking of that: I've seen the "Alien lisp technology inside" logo at: 
This is rather a Common Lisp logo, the many eyes figuring the
multi-paradigm caracteristic of Common Lisp; its author was also
thinking about drawing a logo for Scheme, perhaps showing a mascot with
"two (very well functionning) eyes". See

address@hidden (Pedro Kröger) writes:

> I could sea the advantage of re-writing lily in only one language. but
> this language would have to have a fast implementation and be dynamic
> and very high-level. I can't think of a better choice than common
> lisp ;-)

Dans mes bras, ami ! :-)


reply via email to

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