|
From: | Wiz Aus |
Subject: | Re: Illegal C++ |
Date: | Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:55:00 +1000 |
From: Nicolas Sceaux <address@hidden> To: "Wiz Aus" <address@hidden> CC: address@hidden Subject: Re: Illegal C++ Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:42:29 +0200 "Wiz Aus" <address@hidden> writes: >>From: Nicolas Sceaux <address@hidden> >>"Wiz Aus" <address@hidden> writes: >> >> > lilypond uses an interpretive language (Scheme) >> >>No. LilyPond uses an *implementation* of Scheme, namely guile, which >>only provides an interpreter, but no compiler, unlike many other Scheme >>implementations. Please do not widespread wrong clichés. >> > Well sure - except that "interpretive" isn't ever an accurate > description of a *language* - any language can fully compiled, > partially compiled (e.g. Java), or fully interpreted. Again, no. "Interpretive" is *never* an accurate description of a *language*. You're confusing with *implementations* of a language.
Sounds like we're fully in agreement. I suspect it's a human language problem, not a computer language one! My point was only that lilypond made use of an interpreter while executing, which was bound to affect efficiency far more than an extra C++ function call layer.
I meant 'say' not 'see' - in other words, lilypond does use an interpreted language, and that language happens to be Scheme.Implementations can provide compilers or interpreters, not languages. > But I agree it would more accurate to see lilypond uses an > interpret*ed* language (Scheme). uh? I don't think that using a Scheme implementation with no compiler is an advantage.
> Even if it did use pre-compiled scheme, because lilypond supports > compiling scores that contain Scheme code, it would still require > effectively interpretive processing, which is not doubt a large reason > for it's less-than-blinding-fast operation. My personnal experience is that parsing is not, by far, the longest part in a score compilation.
It may not be the longest part, but parsing, interpreting and executing scripts *is* typically a slow process. Actually calculating the necessary layout of where things should go on a page can be done very very quickly (witness any commerical GUI-based music editor - and yes I accept they often don't quite have the level of sophistication lilypond does, but they do at least 50% of the work lilypond does, and can typically process 50+ page scores in well under a second, as opposed to over 2 minutes). I'm not sure what takes up most of liypond's time, but I would surprised if it really were calculating score layout.
_________________________________________________________________SEEK: Over 80,000 jobs across all industries at Australia's #1 job site. http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |