| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
One reason manpower is short...One reason manpower is short...Posted Aug 11, 2003 23:49 UTC (Mon) by roskegg (subscriber, #105)In reply to: One reason manpower is short... by dank Parent article: State of the GnuCash project No. Scheme was the right choice. They are following in the footsteps of the GIMP and other fine applications by embedding Guile. They just need to document the Scheme API a bit better. You want to write a report? It's easy, just whip up a scheme function; it eliminates the need for complex module loading code; the Scheme VM does the code loading for you. I am suprised they hang on irc.gnome.net instead of irc.gnu.org. That might help a bit.
(Log in to post comments)
One reason manpower is short... Posted Aug 12, 2003 1:39 UTC (Tue) by dank (guest, #1865) [Link] ... and Gimp is backpedalling furiously from that decision;they now allow plugins in C, Perl, and Python as well as the original Scheme. Looking at the registry of available plugins at http://registry.gimp.org, it seems clear that a lot of plugins are being written in Perl and C. I wrote a little plugin once for Gimp in Scheme. It was a major pain in
One reason manpower is short... Posted Aug 12, 2003 5:56 UTC (Tue) by rganesan (subscriber, #1182) [Link] I respectfully disagree. Note that I am not disparaging scheme in any way.I am also not denying that Scheme may be a good choice for Gnucash. I use GnuCash every day despite having some issues with it's UI and performance, so the choice can't be all that bad ;-). However, I agree that Scheme *is* the main reason for lack for developers. It's simply not a mainstream language. I like Lisp and it's variants, I've even tried my hand at some Emacs Lisp
One reason manpower is short... Posted Aug 12, 2003 12:02 UTC (Tue) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375) [Link] It is weird how someone who has written "decent sized programsin C/C++/Java/Perl/Python" should have problems with Scheme. I don't understand this - Scheme is a very simple language - much simpler than Perl, certainly. It is also strange how Perl/Python are viewed as "mainstream" but Now there are styles of Scheme programming with heavy use
One reason manpower is short... Posted Aug 13, 2003 5:29 UTC (Wed) by rganesan (subscriber, #1182) [Link] > It is weird how someone who has written "decent sized programs> in C/C++/Java/Perl/Python" should have problems with Scheme. > I don't understand this - Scheme is a very simple language > - much simpler than Perl, certainly. I didn't say I had problems with Scheme. I had taken a Lisp > It is also strange how Perl/Python are viewed as "mainstream" but I am fairly confident that's a view shared by a large number of developers. I am a professional software developer and in the three companies that I've worked in over the last 10 years, Perl is certainly more "mainstream" than Scheme. In other words, I haven't come across any scheme programmers among my colleagues. I can't say the same for Python though. Hardly anybody seems to be aware of Python at the companies I've worked, but it definitely has more traction than scheme.
LISP style not readable Posted Aug 26, 2003 15:46 UTC (Tue) by Dareth (guest, #14475) [Link] Syntax is syntax for most languages...Pascal,C,Java, hell even Perl. Lisp just doesn't fit the normal mold. Look at the basic Welcome or Hello World .scm file. I can follow what it is doing, but I wouldn't want to just make The comments are helpful.. but some heavy tutorials will be needed to get coders past the initial "WTF kind of code is this!" reaction.
|
|
||||||||||||