[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why not to implement everything in scheme?

From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: Re: Why not to implement everything in scheme?
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:24:23 +0100

address@hidden writes:
> 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.

For the interested reader - when we were considering an extension
system, we also thought about Python. However, python did not have
garbage collection, its objects seemed rather heavyweight (memory
wise) and the scoping rules were counter intuitive.

A big bonus point for Scheme/LISP was the #( .. ) lexer hack, which is
not really possible in other languages. That hack made it really very
easy to gradually migrate the file format to syntactic sugar for


 Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden   | 

reply via email to

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