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

[Pedro Kröger]

Johannes Schindelin <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

I agree with you. I've never used SCORE, but one big advantage of
lilypond is that you don't really need to tweak all the time because it
does the right thing. but the gnome backend seems to be the most sane
idea to deal with tweaks, you enter the notes typing and tweak the music
graphically.

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

I know sometimes it's a PITA to have the format changing all the time,
but to me that was a good decision, you know, change the format while
there is not lots of users (I mean millions) depending on it and ending
up with a very good and *tested* format. I mean, compare the format we
have now with the format of 1.6 or so. To me the format used by lilypond
is the best text format available now (comparing with darms, guido, and
friends) and one of the reasons is that the developers were willing to
change it mercilessly. So instead of having a format designed by a commit
(sp.?) we have a format dictated by testing and use. That's pretty cool,
IMHO. Anyway, it is maturing and changing less and less in each version.

Pedro