Re: C++ vs. Scheme

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

David Feuer wrote:
> 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

Well, me too  ;) i'd probably use it as an excuse to learn ocaml or 
similar. However, it's not the case, so we'll have to live with bits of C++.

> 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.

Yes, me too.

Feel free to rewrite them more functionally.

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
 -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com