Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:18 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> Frankly, I doubt that migration of large Python-based applications is >> going to be a thing when nobody can even be bothered with immersing >> himself in the problems with migrating LilyPond from Guile-1.8 to >> Guile-2. > > No, I don't think so. > If we have guile-python3, the migration work becomes attractive to > Guile community. Because each time you migrate a library, it can be > used in all languages implemented on Guile platform.
The .go organization and call gate costs (for example constant string conversions) and memory organization and foreign string hardiness issues bogging down LilyPond will affect interfacing to every external library with a high call rate for processing. > I think the best way to push a community is to provide convenient way > to let users who care certain library to contribute it. But we don't > have it now. For example, the documentation or tools to help 1.8->2.0. > Python has tools for Python2->Python3 and documents for it. It is the > management of Guile community, not technical problem. Fortunately, > it's just management problem, and it's easier to improve than > technical one, only if we found a persistent way to push and there's > enough contributors. The technical problems won't go away by themselves. So which migration of a large Python-based application do you expect to become a thing without addressing significant amounts of technical problems first? Or how do I have to interpret your "No, I don't think so."? -- David Kastrup
