[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Illegal C++

From: Nicolas Sceaux
Subject: Re: Illegal C++
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:42:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)

"Wiz Aus" <address@hidden> writes:

>>From: Nicolas Sceaux <address@hidden>
>>"Wiz Aus" <address@hidden> writes:
>> > lilypond uses an interpretive language (Scheme)
>>No. LilyPond uses an *implementation* of Scheme, namely guile, which
>>only provides an interpreter, but no compiler, unlike many other Scheme
>>implementations.  Please do not widespread wrong clich├ęs.
> Well sure - except that "interpretive" isn't ever an accurate
> description of a *language* - any language can fully compiled,
> partially compiled (e.g. Java), or fully interpreted.

Again, no. "Interpretive" is *never* an accurate description of a
*language*. You're confusing with *implementations* of a language.
Implementations can provide compilers or interpreters, not languages.
> But I agree it would more accurate to see lilypond uses an
> interpret*ed* language (Scheme).

uh? I don't think that using a Scheme implementation with no compiler
is an advantage.

> Even if it did use pre-compiled scheme, because lilypond supports
> compiling scores that contain Scheme code, it would still require
> effectively interpretive processing, which is not doubt a large reason
> for it's less-than-blinding-fast operation.

My personnal experience is that parsing is not, by far, the longest part
in a score compilation. So I would not say that this is a large reason,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]