lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]