scripting language vs. developer community size

[James LewisMoss]

>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:06:08 -0800, Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu> 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 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 program
 Dan> in C, C++, Java, or Perl.

Learning new things is a goodness.  People should be willing, might I
say excited, to do that.

 >> > Here's a few quotes from the web in support of that theory
 >> > (found by searching for "scheme learning curve"):
 >> I don't see why quoting some web posts can be a good reason.

 Dan> Fair enough.  Would it be more convincing to estimate the number
 Dan> of programmers using various languages by counting job listings
 Dan> for each language?

OK.  I don't think anyone will argue that there are anywhere near the
same number of people who know scheme as there are that know perl (or
C or Java or C++ or whatever), but here's the simple facts:
1) No on is willing to maintain an interface but the scheme one.  You
   want a perl interface.  Go ahead.
2) Many (most? all?) of the core programmers on gnucash know and like
   scheme.

So whatever "You should do this" arguments you might have are pretty
useless unless you or someone else is willing to maintain another
scripting interface to gnucash.  I don't think anyone has argued
against one.  It's just that no one is willing/able/have time/etc.

Jim

-- 
@James LewisMoss <dres@debian.org>      |  Blessed Be!
@    http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com |  Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach