David Kastrup writes:
> To a certain degree one can chalk this off as "growing pains" that
> long-standing users have to shoulder, at least when working with
> development rather than stable versions.
I’d like to chime in here. When looking at the prospects of larger Guile
adoption, I think that Lilypond is a critical component: It is an early
adopter and the absolute top tool in the niche it took.
People thinking about adopting Guile will ask themselves "is this a
viable longterm option?". They will then look at Lilypond, the prime
example of a highly successful Guile-using tool.
So this is not just a growing pain for Lilypond. It is a critical issue
for Guile.
Both communities, Lilypond and Guile, need Lilypond-Guile2 to work well.
And given the speed I see from Guile 2.1.7 at other tasks, there should
be ways to make Lilypond-Guile2.2 outperform Lilypond-Guile1.8
significantly.
Best wishes,
Arne
PS: Just saying "it’s a scripting language now" will not cut it. People
who adopt Guile now will have to ask whether it will stay a viable
option as scripting language, and they will again look at Lilypond
to see whether Guile-as-an-option kept its promises.
