|Subject:||Re: critical issues|
|Date:||Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:42:39 +0100|
On Jan 5, 2012, at 9:14 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
I agree with this - I should have added that those who are contributing to LilyPond should do so in a way that favors extensibility.
I agree with the "something like" part of your statement.
This is not how I think of bugs. If I thought of bugs like this, I wouldn't have taken the time to squash so many bugs in LilyPond over the past several months.
I agree. For example:
The new StemTremolo code does less internal moving of the stencil and farms this out to callbacks.The new Stem code is decoupled from the Flag code and now behaves (along with the flag) more like other grobs.
The Beam scoring code now looks more like the Stem and Tie scoring code on the inside.
I did not work on these projects expressly in order to make LilyPond more uniform, but in working on them, I tried to move LilyPond to a state where its code was uniform. I think a good policy is that, when working on that which one wants to work on, one should always strive to do it in a way that leads to better maintainability and extensibility. Perhaps this is my American bias, but I strongly believe that the value of LilyPond is in the innovativeness of those who care enough about it to work on it. LilyPond's becoming more maintainable and extensible is a result of the good coding practices of these people. However, I do not think that a grand unified vision of where LilyPond should go (short of several guidelines on style and common practice (many of which are already in the CG)) is necessary or desirable.
<taken only slightly out of context>
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
</taken only slightly out of context>
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|