Hi, On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> The entry point is main(). Good luck. ;-) I did that. It is funny to trace the execution path through 3 scheme functions (which could be streamlined, I guess) and back to C++. > > Also, I just saw that one of the original developers is NOT really a fan of > > C++; if you were to try again today, what language would you use and why? > > I'm mostly familiar with C++ and Java (yeah, big diff there, I know), > > No, C++ and Java are much the same: statically typed imperative prrogramming > languages, with support for object orientation. I think I would use a new > project to start learning Haskell or OCaml. I´d vote for Haskell. Having said that, I am quite comfortable with LilyPond as it is now. While there are quite a few language dependencies (C++, Scheme, Python, PostScript, TeX, and lex/yacc), I think that it runs quite well. Sure, one could try to do away with a few of them (for example, Python and TeX), but in the end it is not important which language it is written in, but how well. A good quality measure is: how easy is it to extend the thing without breaking old behaviour? As can be seen from LilyPond NEWS, LilyPond´s rating in that regard is very good indeed. Ciao, Dscho P.S.: Of course, nobody prevents anybody from rewriting LilyPond in Visual Basic as master´s thesis...
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
