lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Discuss signature for new function \annotate (new version)


From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Discuss signature for new function \annotate (new version)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:55:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6

Am 11.06.2013 18:24, schrieb Tim Slattery:
Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:

After all, I'm still wondering what benefits Scheme offers.
I find it extremely reluctant to be understood (that's what it feels:
Scheme tries to avoid being understood), and I would like to have some
benefits that outweigh that effort. And so far I can't see them.
The 'advantage" is that it seems to be the "official" scripting
language for FSF apps, see http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/. As for
why FSF chose a LISP variant for this ... I can't imagine. Nearly
every programmer understands procedural languages, like C, Java,
Javascript, Perl, Ruby, etc, etc. Very few (IMHO) understand LISP.

Whatever language was chosen, you'd have to learn a good deal about
Lilypond's internal structures to use it (those are quite well
documented, by the way). Using a LISP variant just adds another layer
of obscurity on top of that.

I am overwhelmingly impressed by Lilypond, and blown away by its
extensive scriptability. I just wish I could script it in a language I
know something about.

I think David has given some valuable clues as to what makes LISP different from most other languages. I can accept that this offers some benefits (and maybe even substantial ones) - it's just so sad I can't 'feel' them as advantages compared to the wall of obscureness one is faced for a long time.

Urs



reply via email to

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