|
From: | Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: | Re: C++ vs. Scheme |
Date: | Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:10:16 +0200 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) |
David Feuer wrote:
On 4/4/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:The reason for having C++ is historical. I'm not certain that using Scheme for everything will lower hackability of the code, eg. I'm still not as fluent in Scheme as in C++ --with all its shortcomings. Also, having opaque C++ objects is convenient, because it makes it easy to enforce invariants and maintain encapsulation.If I were writing LilyPond, from scratch, alone, I'd probably write it in Standard ML. Unfortunately, not a lot of hackers are familiar with
Well, me too ;) i'd probably use it as an excuse to learn ocaml or similar. However, it's not the case, so we'll have to live with bits of C++.
that. As for opaqueness, that's certainly possible in Scheme, and implementations like PLT provide lots of object-oriented kinds of things if you're into that. What I'd really like to see is more functional (in the FP sense) management of Stencils. set!s make me nervous.
Yes, me too. Feel free to rewrite them more functionally. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |