[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why not to implement everything in scheme?

From: Matthias Kilian
Subject: Re: Why not to implement everything in scheme?
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:00:01 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 08:37:24PM +0100, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
> I'm not sure that there will be pletor of volonteers for recoding
> thousands of C++ LOC in whatever other language.

You just have to write a C++2scm translator ;-)

> hmmm, thinking of it... I volonteer for LilyPond in Common Lisp!!!
> cliclypond is so easier to pronounce.

I'd prefer RubyPond :-)

To be serious: the current implementation is o.k., and, IIRC, Han-Wen
mentioned in the interview at that the C++ part is
planned to shrink away.

I also thought a lot of wether using scheme/guile as semi-backend is the
best choice. It's a matter of taste and readability. Personally, I don't
like scheme very much; allthough it's small and easy to learn, it's IMHO
difficult to read and looks ugly. Thus, using something like Ruby *may*
be an alternative, possibly attracting more volunteers, possibly not.

Anyways. Wether you like/disklike C++, Scheme, Ruby, Python, Haskell,
whatever: those who do participate in active LilyPond development should
concentrate on improving LilyPond, not in using endless time by changing
the languages used. At least not until a certain point of stabilization
has been reached.


reply via email to

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