Re: Appreciation / Financial support

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> There are two separate discussions here:
>
> - how do we offer to average user a way to extend the program. I agree
> that C++ is not the way to go
>
> - how do we offer developers an environment to extend LilyPond, were
> extensions go back into mainline; this is connected with getting more
> developers  on LilyPond.

You can't separate the two.  Developers grow from users.  Look at the
TeX/LaTeX and Emacs communities: how much of the changes happen in the
binary, how much in the interpretative layers?  Where did most
developers get their first experiences and contact?

>> Scheme might not have been the optimal choice, but it beats not
>> having an interpretative layer, and our interpretative layer is still
>> much more limited than desirable.
>
> To me the question is where we should invest: having the interpretive
> layer be more rich (where it is already incredibly rich *and*
> incredibly obtuse),

How about making it less obtuse?

> or having better fundamentals (page breaking, spacing, collisions
> etc..)

That's a red herring.  To work with fundamentals, you need to be able to
juggle and express them in a convenient way.  Juggling is easier done in
an interpretative layer, and the expressiveness is a matter of designing
good programming interfaces.  Scheme is excellently suited for tying
together suitable functional building blocks for linear programming,
arguably quite better than C++.  But one needs to prepare the
fundamentals in a way where Scheme is a good fit, and not tack on a
Scheme layer as an afterthought.

-- 
David Kastrup