[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A view of the history and consideration of some practical matters may
shed some light.
It did, thanks.
-- Even if all the gnucash scheme coders died tommorrow, there's
so much scheme code that it would be a massive undertaking to
re-write it.
-- Form
Hi Dan,
A view of the history and consideration of some practical matters may
shed some light.
Historically (about 3 years ago), the idea of scripting for gnucash was
discussed at length. I personally was advocating perl, not because
it was better, or that I liked it more, but because I knew
I'll say this only once, very quietly, since I don't want a flame
war; but personally I've never been a fan of Java. Its slowww, buggy,
crashes a lot, and has trouble playing nice with others.
I've always been intrigued by the fact that the (vast?) majority
of the open source community have
We hear and respect your opinion. Java is definitely too slow still to
be used for most client-side work, it's piggy with RAM, and the JITs are
still buggy.
Where speed is not the primary concern, Java has a lot going for it,
IMHO. Turn off the JIT and it's pretty stable these days.
One of
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:44:02PM -0600, Christopher Browne wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:00:05 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
The world "could use" something akin to Graham's "On Lisp" that was,
instead, "On Scheme." Kent Dybvig's book on ANSI Scheme, which also
happens to be
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:48:53 EST, the world broke into rejoicing as
David Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:44:02PM -0600, Christopher Browne wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:00:05 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
The world "could use" something akin to Graham's
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 07:05:40PM -0500, Eugene Tyurin wrote:
Many years ago (circa 1988) I remember briefly trying out some
package called Texas Instruments' Scheme. Back then I thought it
looked like a dialect of Lisp with some additional system and GUI
toolkits.
Is that
I are stoopid. James, my apologies for the duplicate email.
rob
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:27:21 -0700 (MST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: scripting language vs. developer community size
To: James LewisMoss
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 09:09:51AM -0700, Clark Jones wrote:
Just in case anyone's not aware of it, the "CAR" and "CDR" in Lisp (I'm
not familiar with Scheme) are register names for a computer designed in
the late 1950's. (Please don't ask me what the acronyms stand for, or
what the computer
Tyson Dowd wrote:
On 15-Jan-2001, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Now I'm reading about car, cdr, caar, cddr, cadr, cdar, and the like.
How nice that all the keywords of the language are so intuitive and high-level,
uninfluenced by the hardware the language originally ran on.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Gribble) writes:
The basic data structure in Scheme (and all LISP-like languages... in
fact LISP is an acronym for LIst PRocessing) is the singly-linked
list. The backbone of the list is a chain of cells ("cons cells")
that have a pointer to the cell data and a
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, I went and bought a Scheme book today at my favorite
technical bookstore (Op-Amp Books in Los Angeles). I asked the
clerk where the Scheme books were and he sniggered... there was an
entire wall of C++ books, and just four books about Scheme
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
p.s. I hope to use GnuCash soon myself, and am quite happy that the
latest RPM's install without trouble on Red Hat 6.2. And I'm trying
to learn Scheme, so if I run into a feature I've gotta have, I can
add it...
If you need any help with scheme, feel
Ariel Rios wrote:
Because there are very few people who know how to program in Scheme
compared to the number of people who know how to program in C, C++, Java, or Perl.
Basically your argument is: "Scheme is bad for there are not many
programmers".
Nope, not saying Scheme is bad. It
James LewisMoss wrote:
Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might be
restricting the number of developers able to contribute to it.
Why?
Dan Because there are very few people who know how to program in
Dan Scheme compared to the number of people who know how to
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
On the other hand, perhaps you folks are using "ability to program Scheme"
in the same way Linus is using "ability to debug kernel problems without
a kernel debugger", i.e. as an IQ filter to keep dumb people from contributing
code. I respect that
Al Snell wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
On the other hand, perhaps you folks are using "ability to program Scheme"
in the same way Linus is using "ability to debug kernel problems without
a kernel debugger", i.e. as an IQ filter to keep dumb people from contributing
code.
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 06:37:59PM +, Al Snell wrote:
On the other hand, perhaps you folks are using "ability to program
Scheme" in the same way Linus is using "ability to debug kernel
problems without a kernel debugger", i.e. as an IQ filter to keep
dumb people from contributing
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 05:51:31PM +1100, Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
Ariel Rios writes:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to bring it up
again:
Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme
"Dirk-Jan C . Binnema" writes:
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 05:51:31PM +1100, Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
Ariel Rios writes:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to bring
it up again:
Requiring that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Gribble) writes:
I've written big programs in C, C++, Common LISP, and Scheme, and
small programs in lots and lots of languages. For working on big
programs, right at this time I can't think of any way I'd rather do
it than as a combination of Scheme and C. Scheme
Many years ago (circa 1988) I remember briefly trying out some
package called Texas Instruments' Scheme. Back then I thought it
looked like a dialect of Lisp with some additional system and GUI
toolkits.
Is that "The Scheme" we're talking about?
--
Nothing here - come back later!
Eugene Tyurin wrote:
Many years ago (circa 1988) I remember briefly trying out some
package called Texas Instruments' Scheme. Back then I thought it
looked like a dialect of Lisp with some additional system and GUI
toolkits.
Is that "The Scheme" we're talking about?
Scheme
I think this is a little bit disingenuous. Nobody outside the
gnucash-devel list is requiring gnucash to use Scheme, least of all
RMS; in point of fact, hardly any GNU projects actually use Scheme
anyway, despite several years of drum-beating to get it to happen.
False. Many GNOME
Ariel Rios wrote:
I think this is a little bit disingenuous. Nobody outside the
gnucash-devel list is requiring gnucash to use Scheme, least of all
RMS; in point of fact, hardly any GNU projects actually use Scheme
anyway, despite several years of drum-beating to get it to happen.
Dan Kegel wrote:
Now I'm reading about car, cdr, caar, cddr, cadr, cdar, and the like.
How nice that all the keywords of the language are so intuitive and high-level,
uninfluenced by the hardware the language originally ran on.
Forgot the URL for the origin story of those keywords. It's
On 15-Jan-2001, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, I went and bought a Scheme book today at my favorite technical
bookstore (Op-Amp Books in Los Angeles). I asked the clerk where the Scheme
books were and he sniggered... there was an entire wall of C++ books,
and just four books
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:09:10 EST, the world broke into rejoicing as
Ariel Rios [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think this is a little bit disingenuous. Nobody outside the
gnucash-devel list is requiring gnucash to use Scheme, least of all
RMS; in point of fact, hardly any GNU projects actually
Christopher Browne wrote:
Frankly, it's utterly unimportant if there are thousands of people out
there in "Internet-Land" that think Scheme is a ludicrous choice if, in
contrast, the core developers of GnuCash _all_ happen to like Scheme.
If the latter fact is true [and if not directly true,
I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to bring it up again:
Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might be
restricting the number of developers able to contribute to it.
Here's a few quotes from the web in support of that theory
(found by searching
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to bring it up again:
Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might be
restricting the number of developers able to contribute to it.
Why?
Here's a few quotes from the
Ariel Rios wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to bring it up again:
Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might be
restricting the number of developers able to contribute to it.
Why?
Because
Because there are very few people who know how to program in Scheme
compared to the number of people who know how to program in C, C++, Java, or Perl.
Basically your argument is: "Scheme is bad for there are not many
programmers". However you forget that Scheme is easier than C,
C++, Java,
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:06:08 -0800, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Dan Ariel Rios wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to
bring it up again:
Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might
Ariel Rios writes:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to bring it up again:
Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might be
restricting the number of developers able to contribute to it.
35 matches
Mail list logo
