Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:20 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>> There are two separate discussions here: >>> >>> - how do we offer to average user a way to extend the program. I agree >>> that C++ is not the way to go >>> >>> - how do we offer developers an environment to extend LilyPond, were >>> extensions go back into mainline; this is connected with getting more >>> developers on LilyPond. >> >> You can't separate the two. Developers grow from users. Look at the >> TeX/LaTeX and Emacs communities: how much of the changes happen in the >> binary, how much in the interpretative layers? Where did most >> developers get their first experiences and contact? > > Let me try to rephrase things: the more functionality is moved into > the Scheme layers, the less people you can find who are capable of > working on it.
Among programmers who never heard of LilyPond and acquired their skills independently. But the target audience of LilyPond is not programmers. It is musicians. > Therefore, you should be careful with moving more and more code into > the Scheme layer. Guess what: I've been programming computers since the seventies, and I was a hardcore C++ programmers years before I started on LilyPond. I had not worked with Scheme before LilyPond. And it is still the Scheme layers that I first was working with. "Comfortable with" is the wrong word. And that was not because of the language Scheme, but because its ties into LilyPond were not consistent in a manner that made sense for me. It's a bit like poetry written by a non-native speaker. And that is only partly the language's fault. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
