Re: [frogs] Frog's Lament

[Marc Hohl]

Han-Wen Nienhuys schrieb:
> [...]
>
> There is not a goal per se to move stuff from C++ to Scheme, but
> rather to expose relevant (C++) interfaces to Scheme so people can
> write the extensions in Scheme if they want.
>
> Come to think of it, it's actually a neat project to write a Scheme
> interface to engravers.  It would be a suitably sized project for me
> to do over the christmas/newyear holidays.
>   
Sounds promising!
>   
> > > a strong will to improve lilypond; without insulting anyone, I would ask
> > > the core
> > > developers to try to see the whole story from somebody's point of view
> > > who has no
> > > clue where to start, limited time, but nevertheless the will to make
> > > things better.
> > >       
>
> I  have a different viewpoint.  I am mystified by the desire of some
> people to mess with the most complicated parts of the program, without
> having the knowledge to pull that.  It's possible to do that, but it
> requires a lot of skill in absording a lot of code quickly.  From a
> didactic point of view,  I don't think it is a good way to starting
> learning how things work.  It's better start with small projects,
> small improvements, and then gradually extend the scope of the changes
> you make, to keep step with the improved understanding of the
> infrastructure of the program, while you make changes.
>   
I understand your viewpoint. At least from my personal experience,
the way into deeper levels of the program is not choosen by purpose
but by the will to improve a certain situation (I for example use tablature
very often; there are some symbols I need, and they aren't available,
so I started to improve tablature and have now come to the point where
the serious work begins - without ever wanting to dig that deep).

And how can you tell a small project from a bigger one, when you have
no experience?
>   
> > > The community cannot afford to drive away possible developers by giving
> > > them the feeling
> > > that there is some inner circle where information flows and where the
> > > beginning
> > > coder has no entry (sort of: "You don't understand the code yourself? Go
> > > playing with
> > > your toys then.") I don't think this is the case, although it sometimes
> > > seems to be.
> > >       
> > I agree with both of your points.  There is no inner circle that wants to
> > hold all knowledge close.  And sometimes it seems that there is.
> >     
>
> As it is, the inner circle is very small, and I am a large part of that circle.
>   
But I think you don't want this situation to last forever?
If you want to get more developers contributing, you'll have to
help them by commenting *new* code fragments
(I don't expect anyone scanning through the files,
trying to describe everything from scratch) and (more important)
sharing your vision about lilypond. If I get in touch with the
underlying philosophy, I can try to absorb it and write code
according to that philosophy. If I don't know where we are going,
I can't.

Marc