Re: emacs-mode

[Martin Tarenskeen]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:08:48AM +0100, Dieter Grollmann wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> After some years I'm back using LilyPond. Program and documentation
> have improved immensely since then (version 1.2.x or 1.4.x). Thank
> you very much!
> 

Do I know your name from the Mup mailing list ?

Let's compare Lilypond and Mup. I have been using Mup for some years 
now, and will continue using it. But I'm now learning to use Lilypond 
also and I like it very much. 

At first sight Lilypond code is much more complex and difficult to 
understand for a first time user. The difficult (but also very flexible) 
part is how to set up the staffs and systems needed for a combination of 
instruments and/or vocal parts. But once this framework is put in place, 
I feel that entering notes in Lilypond is faster than in mup. And if 
create templates for combinations that I need often, I only have to do 
this hardwork once.

Both Lilypond and Mup have their advantages and disadvantages. 
A very quick personal impression:

Mup: 

+ easier to build from sources and low requirements. I have even built a 
working version for my good old Atari Falcon and compatible computers 
running FreeMiNT OS.

+ smaller and simple program package. One simple binary is 
all you really need. 

+ New scores are easier to set up than with Lily. 

+ Piano centered dynamics are MUCH easier in Mup.

+ Printing individual parts from scores can be done easily with 
commandline switches.

- Sources are available, but Mup is Shareware. Development is done not by 
the community, but by two (very nice and capable) guys from Arkkra 
Systems. No CVS or SVN open development system. This makes me worry 
about the future.



Lilypond:

+ Power. Lilypond can do almost anything. The few things that I couldn't 
do with Mup (yet) are possible with Lily.

+ Beautiful score output. Not that Mup is bad, not at all, but Lily is 
even better. 

+ Free, Open Source project. Future improvement aand development 
guranteed, as long as people are willing to help. 

+ More traffic in the lilypond mailing lists than in the Mup mailing 
list. This makes me assume that there are more people using Lilypond 
than Mup.

+ Better support by third party projects: NoteEdit had limited mup 
support (It used a fileformat (*.not) for saving that was similar to the 
Mup format). And I think Rosegarden can export mup. Lilypond is 
supported by Rosegarden, NtEd, NoteEdit, Canorus, Denemo, and there are 
powerful extensions available for editors like jedit, emacs, vim, and 
kate. Complete with point-and-click features in the PDF output to easily 
jump to the corresponding location in the source file.

- Power has a price: The documentation is very good, but it is A LOT. 
You must be willing to do a lot of studying to get the most out of 
Lilypond.

My conclusion:
Mup is cheap, Lilypond is free, so why not have them both !

-- 

Martin Tarenskeen