[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hello!
From: |
Johannes Schindelin |
Subject: |
Re: Hello! |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:25:55 +0200 (CEST) |
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> The entry point is main(). Good luck.
;-) I did that. It is funny to trace the execution path through 3 scheme
functions (which could be streamlined, I guess) and back to C++.
> > Also, I just saw that one of the original developers is NOT really a fan of
> > C++; if you were to try again today, what language would you use and why?
> > I'm mostly familiar with C++ and Java (yeah, big diff there, I know),
>
> No, C++ and Java are much the same: statically typed imperative prrogramming
> languages, with support for object orientation. I think I would use a new
> project to start learning Haskell or OCaml.
I´d vote for Haskell.
Having said that, I am quite comfortable with LilyPond as it is now. While
there are quite a few language dependencies (C++, Scheme, Python,
PostScript, TeX, and lex/yacc), I think that it runs quite well. Sure, one
could try to do away with a few of them (for example, Python and TeX), but
in the end it is not important which language it is written in, but how
well. A good quality measure is: how easy is it to extend the thing
without breaking old behaviour? As can be seen from LilyPond NEWS,
LilyPond´s rating in that regard is very good indeed.
Ciao,
Dscho
P.S.: Of course, nobody prevents anybody from rewriting LilyPond in Visual
Basic as master´s thesis...
- Hello!, P B, 2005/10/09
- Re: Hello!, Mats Bengtsson, 2005/10/09
- Re: Hello!, Johannes Schindelin, 2005/10/09
- Re: Hello!, Hans Forbrich, 2005/10/09
- Re: Hello!, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/10/10
- Re: Hello!,
Johannes Schindelin <=
- Re: Hello!, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/10/10
- Re: Hello!, Erik Sandberg, 2005/10/10
- Re: Hello!, Johannes Schindelin, 2005/10/10
- Re: Hello!, Erik Sandberg, 2005/10/10
- Re: Hello!, Johannes Schindelin, 2005/10/10
Re: Hello!, Erik Sandberg, 2005/10/10