Re: Appreciation / Financial support

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:17 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> It would be nice to have fewer incompatible modes, and simpler ways of
> extending them.
>
> And "the C++ must go" with regard to how LilyPond can be extended.  If
> parts of LilyPond require "object orientation", then the respective
> tools need to be available from Scheme.  No user can be expected to
> recompile.

Just a word of caution: scheme is a dynamic language, so programming
errors will only discovered at runtime, which requires a lot of
investment in testing. I think that the current setup where large
parts are in C++ is pretty good, since it  gets us both type checking
and runtime speed.

(the thought of having to go in and change -let's say- the
partcombiner without breaking anything makes me shudder.)

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen