David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> writes: >> PS: Just saying "it’s a scripting language now" will not cut it. > > With an implied "rather than an extension language": that _would_ cut > it. It would imply LilyPond having to work with a fork of Guile-1.8, > and possibly encourage active maintenance of such a fork independently > of LilyPond. It would also put a clear perspective on Emacs-Guile's > future, namely none.
It would also show that Guile leaves people behind who choose it. Yes, it would be a strategy, but not one which inspires much confidence in the longterm stability of its goals. >> 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. > > Well, Guile is not an "option" in LilyPond, I did not mean it as option in Lilypond. I meant it as strategic possibility. > and it is clearly more than just an extension language (as I believe > it is designed to be in GnuCash). It's more like its programming > paradigm. The C++ part is structured to fit in with Guile. But this > sort of 1:1 relation is much more tenuous with Guile-2 since the > interaction costs have become quite larger. So it works better for > either applications that have just a little Guile, or for applications > that have little else. I hope that will change again. I’m sure most people here want Lilypond to be faster with Guile 2.x than with Guile 1.8. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
