Re: Roadmap to lily code

[Pedro Kröger]

address@hidden writes:

> I would have never thought that this mailing list, of all places,
> would host yet another language war !

It was not my intention to start a language war. I should have made
clear that my point was:

1. I don't see the point of re-writing working code just to replace a
   language (scheme in this case) and end up with the same estructure of
   c++/<the-new-language-here>. I'd see the benefit of rewriting the
   whole thing to get rid of c++, having only one (high-level) language
   in the end.

2. The main reason I mentioned Common Lisp was because it would be much
   easier to convert a code from scheme to CL than to haskell, for
   instance. And I do believe that CL would be more apropriate and
   faster to be used as the only language than scheme

of course I think that CL is good for other reasons, but I shall not
mention here because I don't want to start a war :-) 

> However, evidence seems to show that extensible systems based on
> Python, Lua, or Tcl are more often and proficiently extended than
> systems based on Scheme.

I respectfully disagree, Emacs is an example of a program who uses a
lisp dialect (not scheme) and has a *huge* amount of contribution. Even
from people who have nothing to do with lisp (e.g. java programers).

Pedro Kröger