[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C++ vs. Scheme
From: |
David Feuer |
Subject: |
Re: C++ vs. Scheme |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:57:03 -0400 |
On 4/4/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> The reason for having C++ is historical.
>
> I'm not certain that using Scheme for everything will lower hackability
> of the code, eg. I'm still not as fluent in Scheme as in C++ --with all
> its shortcomings. Also, having opaque C++ objects is convenient,
> because it makes it easy to enforce invariants and maintain encapsulation.
If I were writing LilyPond, from scratch, alone, I'd probably write it
in Standard ML. Unfortunately, not a lot of hackers are familiar with
that. As for opaqueness, that's certainly possible in Scheme, and
implementations like PLT provide lots of object-oriented kinds of
things if you're into that. What I'd really like to see is more
functional (in the FP sense) management of Stencils. set!s make me
nervous.
David Feuer
Re: C++ vs. Scheme, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/04
- Re: C++ vs. Scheme,
David Feuer <=