[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 linuxmusician.com 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).