Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> writes: > Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > >> 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. > > For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself outplays learning a new > programming language by far. Moreover, learning scheme has given me a > very helpful and refreshing new perspective on programming. > > I'm wondering, do you think that learning a new language such as scheme > would scare you away from hacking on LilyPond, if you discovered it? > >> Therefore, you should be careful with moving more and more code into >> the Scheme layer. > > If the former hypothesis was true, then maybe. Or maybe not -- most > important is that things get better, simpler, easier to extend and > change for the current hackers, imvho.
In my opinion, we have too many layers to keep track of for extensions. The proper subdivision should be something like: C++: functionality Scheme: structure and control flow LilyPond input language: "user interface" layer The problem with LilyPond is that the C++ and Scheme layers don't really have a proper separation of tasks, and so you can't escape either for actually simple extensions. I don't think it makes sense talking about different extension languages before cleaning up our act regarding this division of tasks. It is an incremental task to turn the C++/Scheme threshold into something that makes sense. And one that would, once accomplished, greatly simplify a full-blown conversion to a different extension language if it was still deemed desirable. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
