Re: State of LilyPond with Guile 2.2

[Thomas Morley]

Am So., 18. Apr. 2021 um 15:38 Uhr schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>:
>
> Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 13:11 +0000 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > > > For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Scheme bytecode
> > > > would be too painful.
> > >
> > > Agreed for user installations, but we have a work-around there.  So
> > > what about development? Do we *require* compiled bytecode to work
> > > there?  [...]
> >
> > I don't know, really.  I have zero feeling for that.  Of course it
> > would be nice if `make doc` doesn't become much slower.  Whether this
> > can be easily done, I have no clue.
> >
> > > P.S.: This is getting a bit annoying, but I honestly have no clue
> > > how I could ask the questions in a better way that you answer all
> > > of
> > > them in one reply...
> >
> > What exactly is unclear if I write "please proceed"?
>
> Originally the whole point of the thread was "where" to proceed:
> Continue working on proper bytecode compilation (because that is a
> requirement), or tackle the other topics such as how to build binaries.
> This only got side-tracked by questioning if Guile 2.2 makes sense at
> all, which I didn't anticipate in the beginning.
>
> By now I guess just nobody cares to tell me in advance and whatever I
> choose to do, it will be questioned when I try to proceed to the next
> steps...
>
> Jonas

Currently I'm testing both. From a user's and a developer's point of view.
I'll post about it in the (late) evening or tomorrow.
Please have a little patience.

Cheers,
  Harm