[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why not to implement everything in scheme?

From: Julian Squires
Subject: Re: Why not to implement everything in scheme?
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:06:23 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:06:11PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> Bigloo produces C code which would then have to be compiled with gcc anyway.

g++ produces assembler which would then have to be assembled with gas
anyway.  Languages are for the programmer's benefit.  (It's interesting
to note that bigloo's output tends to be quite competitive with typical,
idiomatic C++ programs compiled with g++)

Anyway, I'm not arguing that someone should immediately translate
lilypond into some other language.  That would be silly.  I'm just
pointing out some myths that people are perpetuating here (scheme is
always slow and interpreted, C++ is equivalently expressive to these
other languages, etc).

Cheers.  No malice intended by my snarky comments above.

Julian Squires

reply via email to

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