Re: Several questions concerning scheme-music-function

[David Kastrup]

Robert Schmaus <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 27.05.18 um 12:09 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Robert Schmaus <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> Ok, thanks again for the references. I think for now, I simply stay
>>> within the "out of the box" Lilypond limits. I'd have to invest
>>> hours of learning Scheme - that's not an option for the near future,
>>> I'm afraid.
>>
>> It's usually a distributed investment.  You get some things done,
>> then some more things.  Scheme is not as far away in LilyPond as,
>> say, Lua is in LuaTeX.  It's much more integrated so it doesn't take
>> a leap into a distant world.
>
> Thanks - your mail actually does make me want to give it another
> go. Urs's resources will sure help me too.

It's a bit like getting acquainted with combustive engines in order to
drive a car in the years of car revolution.  It's no longer a motor
coach you'll just drive back home drawn by horses if the motor breaks
down.  Getting comfortable with some basic maintenance stuff will go a
long way towards being able to help yourself.

But if you learn about combustive engines independent from their use in
cars, applying that knowledge will be annoyingly cumbersome because all
that nasty stuff about starters, transmissions, wheels, suspensions and
so on all has nothing to do with motors.

In a similar vein, learning Scheme independent from its use in LilyPond
will make you learn both less and more than you think you'll actually
want to use.

So the "I'll get proficient in Scheme maybe one day and until then I
will not touch it" approach is likely building psychological barriers
without being an overly useful goal as such.

-- 
David Kastrup