> From: Tim McNamara > > On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Jeff Barnes wrote: >>> From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> >>> >>> On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >>>> One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support > for >>>> things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management >>>> and callbacks. >>> >>> How about D? >> >> Also, consider Qt. It has all of the above. Qt makes it pretty easy for > devs who started out with higher-level languages to become productive in C++. > > See, here is the problem. There appear to be about 500 languages which could > be > used for writing the core application and writing ways to extend it. It > seems > that someone with too much time on their hands is inventing a new language > every > damn day. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. But here are the > key > things: > > 1. Lilypond needs to be portable to run natively on all of the major > platforms: Windows, Mac and Linux/BSD/etc. with as little re-coding as > possible.
While I'm sensitive to David's request to end the discussion for now, there are some misconceptions about Qt that need addressing. I wish David's response were part of this message so I could address clearly both, but I'll try to reconstruct his reasons and offer counterpoint constructively. First, Qt is cross-platform and runnable on the above platforms and others as well. > > 2. In order to have people writing the code, the languages used should be > already in wide use so that developers don't have to learn a new language > and install new APIs. Mature, well-understood languages will reduce the > likelihood of introducing new bugs. While Qt APIs are required, no new language is required. With Scheme and the other extension strategies, both new API's and new languages are required. > > It becomes alphabet soup watching people toss the language of the moment into > the discussion. I understand that recommendations like this have very large scope. I don't think Qt is a language of the moment, though. It is mature and has a very large developer base. David seemed to echo your sentiments a little differently. While not explicitly clear in his response, he seemed to relegate Qt to a UI framework. While it's true that Qt is a great UI framework, it has much more value than just in UI development. It's not my job or inclination to educate folks about the extent of Qt's frameworks, but saying it's a UI development API is like saying GNU is Emacs. I'm not sure he was being serious in adding Visual Basic to the mix, but whether or not he was serious, comparing VB to Qt is disingenuous and dismissive without a fair consideration. VB isn't cross platform. There are also license differences and Qt is on the right side of that comparison. I was a little surprised that someone with a GNU background like his would have made those remarks. Regards, Jeff _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
