On 30 mai 2012, at 03:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> While the scheme integration have been a big leap forward in terms of >>>> expandability and flexibility, I think it has also been our gravest >>>> design error. Both for technical reasons (GUILE is a poor >>>> implementation), but also for practical reasons: writing scheme is >>>> hard for the general public, and it has surely decreased the amount of >>>> developer participation we've had. >> >> Interesting. If you were deciding now, what language would you use? >> >> And is it at all conceivable to change this now? > > > I personally have become very enamored with Go (golang.org), btw. > Sometimes I wonder how LilyPond would turn out if I started it from > scratch today. >
Many projects release X.0 version w/ entirely new parts of the code base. It is a huge leap, but in my mind thinking big like this is a good idea. I think that it is important to max out the present version and figure out where its faults lie and then decide if rewriting LilyPond makes sense. I think it could be done in 3 months divided over 4-5 people (meaning anything in C++/Scheme - I wouldn't touch the MetaFont). That said, people have been writing rather critical things of Scheme. I'll just say that I <3 Scheme! Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
