"Wiz Aus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>From: Nicolas Sceaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>"Wiz Aus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 clichés. >> > 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, no. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond