Re: Roadmap to lily code

Trevor Bača wrote: On 1/1/06, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Art Hixson wrote: Over the years I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of Fortran, Cobol, assembly for a variety of machines, Forth, Rexx, Modula, Python. While Modula is syntac

Re: Roadmap to lily code

On 1/1/06, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > > Art Hixson wrote: > > > >> Over the years I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of > >> Fortran, Cobol, assembly for a variety of machines, Forth, Rexx, > >> Modula, Python. While Modula is syntactically perfect

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Art Hixson wrote: Over the years I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of Fortran, Cobol, assembly for a variety of machines, Forth, Rexx, Modula, Python. While Modula is syntactically perfect and Python, as its descendant, is pretty nearly so, they still have

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Art Hixson wrote: Over the years I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of Fortran, Cobol, assembly for a variety of machines, Forth, Rexx, Modula, Python. While Modula is syntactically perfect and Python, as its descendant, is pretty nearly so, they still have a rather old fashioned fee

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Being relatively new to Lilypond I was puzzled by the use of Scheme as a programming language. But, after reading this thread I was inspired to actually have a look at the language. I now wonder why anyone would question the choice. For Scheme is a wonderful, expressive language. I intend t

Re: Roadmap to lily code

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I would have never thought that this mailing list, of all places, > would host yet another language war ! It was not my intention to start a language war. I should have made clear that my point was: 1. I don't see the point of re-writing working code just to replace a

Re: Roadmap to lily code

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Scheme really preventing users from hacking LilyPond's internals? I sure believe it does. Scheme is ok, but too remote to many people's culture. My perception has always been that the first few hurdles Scheme doesn't really help, but I doubt whether this is the r

Re: Roadmap to lily code

I would have never thought that this mailing list, of all places, would host yet another language war ! Quoting Nicolas Sceaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > that Python would have enabled far more people to hack with > > the internals., as the procedural-OO paradigm is more popular than > > functional

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Darius Blasband <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On the positive side, I guess - Nicolas might contradict me here - Had you not written that, I would not have answered :-p > that Python would have enabled far more people to hack with > the internals., as the procedural-OO paradigm is more popular

Re: Roadmap to lily code

dax2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > how did you learn Lisp? 1. reading books like SICP [1], PCL [2], PAIP [3], ANSI Common Lisp [4] and others 2. reading articles like Paul Graham's to "get" the language 3. writing code 4. reading other people code 5. asking questions (e.g. on comp.lang.lis

Re: Roadmap to lily code

dax2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > how did you learn Lisp? 1. reading books like SICP [1], PCL [2], PAIP [3], ANSI Common Lisp [4] and others 2. reading articles like Paul Graham's to "get" the language 3. writing code 4. reading other people code 5. asking questions (e.g. on comp.lang.lis

Re: Roadmap to lily code

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:00:50 -0200 Pedro wrote: > I could sea the advantage of re-writing lily in only one language. but > this language would have to have a fast implementation and be dynamic > and very high-level. I can't think of a better choice than common > lisp ;-) If it's not a sarcasm the

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Christian Ebert wrote: > * Han-Wen Nienhuys on Thursday, December 08, 2005: > >>andrea valle wrote: >> >>>How much for a migration to python as a sponsored feature :-)? >> >>5 digits. > > > 1 cent is a bit cheap ;-) > > c 1 c? No, he meant one whole hand. That's still cheap, because I

Pythonization (was Re: Roadmap to lily code)

(Could be of some interest so I keep it on the list) I'm also not sure it's a good idea. If you want python, it would be better to start afresh with a python version of LilyPond, and move speed-critical things to C(++). Then, end-result will be more "pythonic" And in that case? Could you m

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm also not sure it's a good idea. If you want python, it would be > better to start afresh with a python version of LilyPond, and move > speed-critical things to C(++). Then, end-result will be more > "pythonic" > I imagine that the end result will

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Darius Blasband wrote: How much for a migration to python as a sponsored feature :-)? 5 digits. OK. What are the first two of these five digits ? I really don't know. If anyone is serious about ponying up this much money, he/she can contact me, my rough guess is between 0.5 and 1.5 year

Re: Roadmap to lily code

* Han-Wen Nienhuys on Thursday, December 08, 2005: > andrea valle wrote: >> How much for a migration to python as a sponsored feature :-)? > > 5 digits. 1 cent is a bit cheap ;-) c -- _B A U S T E L L E N_ lesen! --->>

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: andrea valle wrote: How much for a migration to python as a sponsored feature :-)? 5 digits. OK. What are the first two of these five digits ? D. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gn

Re: Roadmap to lily code

andrea valle wrote: How much for a migration to python as a sponsored feature :-)? 5 digits. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman

Re: Roadmap to lily code

On 07/12/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sven Axelsson wrote: > > I guess that the Python syntax (the indentation rules) would have made > > it a bit messy. Since we're speculating anyways; perhaps an embedded > > C++ interpreter would have given hacking opportunities to the most

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Sven Axelsson wrote: I guess that the Python syntax (the indentation rules) would have made it a bit messy. Since we're speculating anyways; perhaps an embedded C++ interpreter would have given hacking opportunities to the most people. Here is such a beast: that would be counterproductive. We

Re: Roadmap to lily code

How much for a migration to python as a sponsored feature :-)? Best -a- On 7 Dec 2005, at 10:39, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Darius Blasband wrote: Interesting question though: if you had to do it again, would you still consider Scheme, or would you rather go for Python Andrea Valle DAM

Re: Roadmap to lily code

On 07/12/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Darius Blasband wrote: > > Interesting question though: if you had to do it again, would you still > > consider Scheme, or would you rather go for Python > > > > Yes, that's an intriguing question. I'm not sure, really. The # hack > co

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Darius Blasband wrote: On the positive side, I guess - Nicolas might contradict me here - that Python would have enabled far more people to hack with the internals., as the procedural-OO paradigm is more popular than functional programming. Besides, as far as I know, I would assume that Python p

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Darius Blasband wrote: Interesting question though: if you had to do it again, would you still consider Scheme, or would you rather go for Python Yes, that's an intriguing question. I'm not sure, really. The # hack could also have been done in Python, by requi

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Darius Blasband wrote: Interesting question though: if you had to do it again, would you still consider Scheme, or would you rather go for Python Yes, that's an intriguing question. I'm not sure, really. The # hack could also have been done in Python, by requiring parentheses, I guess.

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Interesting question though: if you had to do it again, would you still consider Scheme, or would you rather go for Python D. Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Erik Sandberg wrote: I guess Guile was chosen partly because that Scheme implementation existed and integrated well with C++ and with li

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Erik Sandberg wrote: I guess Guile was chosen partly because that Scheme implementation existed and integrated well with C++ and with lily's parser. the reasons were political and practical. Political, because GUILE Scheme was supposed to be The One True GNU extension language, and practical

Re: Roadmap to lily code

dax2 wrote: When I read such stuff I wonder why a message isn't an object. And how do they propose to cut a string ... (enough said;-) the Scheme standard is in R5RS, and IIRC, it doesn't specify how strings should behave in detail. Different implementations may have different methods. In any

Re: Roadmap to lily code

On Tuesday 06 December 2005 20.49, dax2 wrote: > On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:48:34 +0100 > > Erik wrote: > > On Monday 05 December 2005 18.17, Mehmet Okonsar wrote: > > > Hello users and creators of the best music notation program in > > > the world! > > > > > > What can you suggest for learning Scheme?

Re: Roadmap to lily code

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:48:34 +0100 Erik wrote: > On Monday 05 December 2005 18.17, Mehmet Okonsar wrote: > > Hello users and creators of the best music notation program in > > the world! > > > > What can you suggest for learning Scheme? > > A set of few links for getting from almost 0 up to Lilypon

Re: Roadmap to lily code

On Monday 05 December 2005 18.17, Mehmet Okonsar wrote: > Hello users and creators of the best music notation program in the world! > > What can you suggest for learning Scheme? > A set of few links for getting from almost 0 up to Lilypond source. > Recommended readings textbooks and on-line tutori

Re: Roadmap to lily code

I would start the other way around, namely in the LSR or (more or less equivalently) with the Regression Tests and Tips and Tricks documents. For Scheme, see "Appendix B Scheme tutorial" and the links therein. See also http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ for a book that's a standard reference in com

Re: Roadmap to lily code

Regarding scheme, I can't really help you and would welcome additional explanations. However, in general, the easiest way to learn Lilypond (or at least what worked for me) is to go to the mutopia website and download lilypond sources. Copy and paste until you get comfortable starting from scra