Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> wrote: >> 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? > > As long as you seek out new technologies, you'll always get new > perspectives on programming. > > I, like most people, have only a limited amount of time. Learning a > programming language well enough to write code that sticks to wall > when you throw it, is a significant investment, and if there is a > choice, I'd invest in something that will pay off beyond working on > LilyPond. Scheme has very use in any context, so it's not very > attractive.
Emacs Lisp has very little use outside of Emacs. TeX has very little use outside of TeX, and is total crap as a programming language (much less consistent and predictable than, say, m4, let alone Scheme). Yet Emacs has created a blossoming package ecosystem, and LaTeX has sprouted an enormous package ecosystem, whereas plain TeX has remained a disconnected toy field for tinkerers. What helped LaTeX take off as compared to plain TeX? Extension mechanisms and reasonable (though neither hardwired into the core language TeX nor fabulous) modularization and encapsulation mechanisms and hooks. LaTeX2.09 created a larger ecosystem than plain TeX due to a better abtracted document language. Its redesign LaTeX2e grew a humongous ecosystem over time, and that is because _most_ packages work orthogonally without significant interference with other packages. And those that don't, like hyperref (because of missing hooks and abstractions in the core), are a maintenance nightmare. Changing languages will not save us from doing our homework. It's like complaining that we should really replace our floors with hardwood rather than the current carpet because hardwood is quite easier to keep clean. "Have you tried vacuuming?" "Why should I when hardwood is so much easier to keep clean?" "If we got hardwood, would you clean it?" "I am sure that will be taken care of, somehow." -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
