Re: Sponsoring lilypond development Was Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Erik Sandberg wrote:

> On Thursday 18 August 2005 06.41, Trevor Baca wrote:
>
> As you say, it could be useful to start a constructive dialogue with the 
> SCORE folks, to
>
> (a) see what it would require (in terms of improved program design) to 
> make them join us.
>
> (b) get inspiration from their engraving expertise.

I agree. I worked with SCORE long time ago (1993 it was), and found the 
interface cumbersome. I always wanted something like Lily, and when I went 
back to setting scores (as a hobbyist) a few years ago, I was so happy 
Lily exists!

The most important point to make before a SCORE user is probably the 
staling of SCORE development. I never understood how a professor wanted to 
make money, _instead of_ passing his knowledge to others. Strange culture.

Contrary to Han-Wen, I don´t believe that the tweaking in Lily is too 
cumbersome (i.e. not direct enough). I believe that many SCORE users would 
be glad to have less to tweak in a single piece, but have the option to 
set up global tweakings. Much like LaTeX style files.

The biggest obstacle to SCORE users probably is the fast changing syntax. 
They _need_ a reliable format.

Ciao,
Dscho