[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why not to implement everything in scheme?

From: Nicolas Sceaux
Subject: Re: Why not to implement everything in scheme?
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:33:34 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:00:01 +0100, Matthias a dit : 

 > 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.

 > Ciao,
 >      Kili

You're unfair, you have deleted my smiley when quoting me. It was the
short way for expressing your last paragraph (sort of).

reply via email to

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