|
From: | Jesús Guillermo Andrade |
Subject: | Re: Quit [now definitely O/T] |
Date: | Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:07:26 -0430 |
Hello there!... El 12/11/2009, a las 04:11 a.m., David Kastrup escribió:
Lilypond's Scheme is GUILE's Scheme. And the fact you are pointing out is repeatedly found on hundreds of blogs around the internet , whenever some Java/C/C++ programmer is faced with Scheme/Lisp. They all have said the same thing: How come we have to use such and old language, when we have such great new (and modern!) new ones that could handle everything easily? Fashionability is the keyword here. Java, for example, with all the bell and whistles it has, is *barely* (from a distance) catching up with Lisp. Sure, there are more books being sold by thie X language, or it sounds more fashianble to work this Y language in the opensource community but then what?... would lilypond's owners have to change the whole concept behind it in order to bring up more programmers? Is there a need for programming language or interfaces other than the ones already in? I think not. Perhaps the project need more people *organizing* the information regarding the interfaces and polishing the syntax... I would not know what the higher powers would want.
Why not Java? or Objective C for that matter?... Or Ada, or COBOL, or ALGOL or Fortran, or ... hmmm... gosh... there are so many. In the beggining (1958) there were only 2. And currently just Lisp stays strong and way ahead of all others in terms of flexibility, scalabilty and freedom to do whatever anybody might want.
That is a problem of perspective that is faced with all programmers that have ever read one line of scheme/lisp code. The problem has historical roots and has been documented elsewere. Notwithstanding, there are several ways to overcome this perpective limitation.
Guillermo |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |