On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, <lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> writes:
>> I've also included a few of D's safety features with assert() commands
>> to ensure that the variables have the properties required.
>>
>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> struct LilyPitch
>> {
>> int octave;
>> int notename;
>
> What is an int? Why do I need these lines?
Quite an amusing exercise, demolishing the D example. I have half a
mind to do the same thing with the original scheme example, but I
expect I'll get bored with it about halfway through. Nonetheless, to
start off:
(define (naturalize-pitch p)
(let ((o (ly:pitch-octave p))
(a (* 4 (ly:pitch-alteration p)))
;; alteration, a, in quarter tone steps,
;; for historical reasons
(n (ly:pitch-notename p)))
For starters, I'm already lost. It's next to impossible, without at
least months of practice working with LISP or scheme, to have a strong
intuitive sense of which ( and ) belong together (at least, without an
editor like emacs that highlights matching brackets).
It's very easy for the experienced schemer to underestimate the
difficulty this poses -- even to programmers who are experienced in
other languages (let alone the novice programmers that all of this is
supposed to invite into the world of extending LilyPond).
Second: *Prefix* notation for math and comparison operations? This is
supposed to be easier for the novice?
D is obviously the wrong fit for an lp extension language, but scheme
has a couple of strikes against it right from the start.
(cond
((and (> a 1) (or (eq? n 6) (eq? n 2)))
(set! a (- a 2))
(set! n (+ n 1)))
If it's fair to nitpick about D's "pure," "auto," +=, -=, semicolons
before braces etc., then it's fair to nitpick about ? and ! here.
Reading it, I can sort of understand why, but learning to write it...
just one more detail to remember. And, why (cond...) in some places
and (if...) in others? (If that's a stupid question, it's no less
stupid than some of the other swipes at D.)
And I was right... I did get bored with it. But that's because it's
kind of pointless. More useful, maybe, would be to compare lp's scheme
functions against a comparable implementation in, say, Lua (which is
designed for extension-writing).
For the record, I'm no apologist for D (I don't know anything about it
and it looks rather fussy at first glance, not interesting to me). But
scheme is superficially less than appealing as well. I'd say
supercollider is more legible (though obviously the sc interpreter
isn't a good candidate to integrate into another environment).
hjh
--
James Harkins /// dewdrop world
jamshar...@dewdrop-world.net
http://www.dewdrop-world.net
"Come said the Muse,
Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,
Sing me the universal." -- Whitman
blog: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/words
audio clips: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/audio
more audio: http://soundcloud.com/dewdrop_world/tracks
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
