[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Roadmap to lily code
From: |
Pedro Kröger |
Subject: |
Re: Roadmap to lily code |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:00:50 -0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> 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 be slower than the current
> GUILE/Scheme combo.
I bet it will be, unless lots of things will be written in C(++). I
can't see the advantage of doing that: re-write something that is
already working in c++/guile to c++/python.
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 ;-)
Cheers,
Pedro Kröger
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, (continued)
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Sven Axelsson, 2005/12/07
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/12/07
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Sven Axelsson, 2005/12/07
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, andrea valle, 2005/12/07
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/12/07
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Darius Blasband, 2005/12/08
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/12/08
- Re: Roadmap to lily code,
Pedro Kröger <=
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, dax2, 2005/12/08
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Pedro Kröger, 2005/12/08
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Pedro Kröger, 2005/12/08
- Pythonization (was Re: Roadmap to lily code), andrea valle, 2005/12/08
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Christian Ebert, 2005/12/08
- Re: Roadmap to lily code, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/12/06
Re: Roadmap to lily code, Cameron Horsburgh, 2005/12/08
Re: Roadmap to lily code, Art Hixson, 2005/12/31