[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]
From: |
Jesús Guillermo Andrade |
Subject: |
Re: Quit [now definitely O/T] |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:49:13 -0430 |
Dear David: Thank you very much for your reply. If I was not that
clear, please accept my apologies. I was not trying to seem
pretentious or arrogant (far from it since I went into the thread as a
newbie). My first language was COBOL, then Pascal, Perl and C. I
barely have some notions of C++ (with emphasis over the + signs) :-)
For Lisp I started with Emacs many years ago, but I never put it into
practice since I did not need it until recently.
El 12/11/2009, a las 02:17 p.m., David Kastrup escribió:
And that's the main point: does the job. The one thing Emacs Lisp has
going over Common Lisp that it is a reasonably limited language to
learn
in comparison. Which is a nuisance to seasoned Lisp programmers, and
gets quite more people to meddle with it.
But surely from a practical point of view: would not that kind of
shift change the whole design philosophy of lilypond? How much would
have to adapt? Maybe start of scratch?
I can actually understand and work with the Lua coroutines. In
contrast, I am not sure that trying to solve tasks with Scheme...
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.
Oh come on, get down from your high horse. I am maintaining Emacs
Lisp
packages and have written a few. I am familiar with the
proceduralisms
of applied Lisp, but it does not mean I can't write something in a
functional style like
((lambda (f n) (f f n)) (lambda (f n) (if (> n 1) (* n (f f (- n
1))) 1)) 5)
I get the point...
Scheme might not be the nicest language for programming, but being
able to solve everything important in some application in _one_
language without need of recompiling (or heap management) or
language interfacing would be a good step towards recruiting new
programmers and solving tasks, partly in form of libraries or
packages which can be just used on-demand rather than needing to
be compiled in.
Where can I vote?
In the usual way, with patches on the list.
I will. Thanks.
Guillermo.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
- documentation formats, (continued)
- Re: documentation formats, David Kastrup, 2009/11/12
- Re: documentation formats, David Kastrup, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], David Kastrup, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Jesús Guillermo Andrade, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], David Kastrup, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T],
Jesús Guillermo Andrade <=
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], David Kastrup, 2009/11/13
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Kieren MacMillan, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Kieren MacMillan, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Kieren MacMillan, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Graham Percival, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], David Kastrup, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], Kieren MacMillan, 2009/11/12
- Re: Quit [now definitely O/T], David Kastrup, 2009/11/12