Rob Browning wrote:
>
> From a developer's perspective, if it's done right, you shouldn't see
> it too much unless you're specifically working on the customization
> stuff. Further, using guile could dramatically reduce the code count
> in many places. In general, a well implemented scheme algorithm will
> use a *lot* less code than the same thing in C, and you don't even
> have to recompile to try things out. If we ever did have enough of
> GnuCash available from the Guile level, a lot of mid-level developers
> would never even have to worry about how to get GnuCash to compile
> because they'd only need pre-compiled binaries.
>
> All that said, this touches on *exactly* the point I was raising
> yesterday. I'd really like to know how many people we have in the
> "pro-guile" and "anti-guile" camps. If we have a substantial split,
> we need to divide up and pursue the different directions rather than
> grinding on with the potential animosity that can result.
>
Since your asking here is my stance... I don't care one way or the
other. Like you said above if its done right then you won't even notice
its there.
I do however think we should settle on just using guile, and drop perl.
I am assuming that swig is still around for perl sake. So lets drop
perl, and swig already! ;) I am sure the reports code can be redone to
use guile somehow.
--
Jeremy Collins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- %< -------------------------------------------- >% ------
The GnuCash / X-Accountant Mailing List
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
put "unsubscribe gnucash-devel [EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the body
