Ariel Rios wrote:
>
> > Because there are very few people who know how to program in Scheme
> > compared to the number of people who know how to program in C, C++, Java, or Perl.
> Basically your argument is: "Scheme is bad for there are not many
> programmers".
Nope, not saying Scheme is bad. It may be great. All I'm saying is
that the available developer pool is small.
> However you forget that Scheme is easier than C,
> C++, Java, Perl
Not for people who know C++, Java, or Perl already and don't know Scheme;
writing Scheme takes quite an adjustment.
> and the idea of a scripting language
> is to give the user an easy way of creating scripts and extending
> your application. Scheme has proved to be an excellent if not the best
> option as a scripting language. The power of lisp has already been
> showed by emacs an elisp...
Only issue I have with that is users not familiar with Scheme
(and that's nearly everyone) will have to spend the few weeks needed to learn Scheme.
I admire you folks for trying to change the world for the better
by spreading the gospel of Scheme, but pragmatically speaking,
there's a cost: fewer people are available to work on Gnucash because of it.
- Dan
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
