[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: developers developers developers

From: Kieren MacMillan
Subject: Re: developers developers developers
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:27:25 -0500

Hi Graham (et al),

For the record, **I have never recommended that somebody use
lilypond**.  When meeting a technically-oriented composer

Ah! That's your problem right there... I recommend Lilypond all the time, but primarily to AESTHETICALLY-oriented composers.

In my experience, most composers under the age of 30 are sufficiently "technically-oriented" to handle Lilypond syntax (ex: of the 20 composers in my third Colorado seminar, all but 3 claimed to have had "computer programming experience", and 2 of the 3 that didn't were graduate students older than 30). IM(NS)HO, the *only* reason to enthusiastically recommend Lilypond is its output: for 95+% of the population, it's an inferior engraving experience (i.e., high learning curve and no GUI), but the difference in output quality is so great that it justifies my fevered evangelism.

That's why I cringe a bit whenever I hear people proudly announcing
that they advertized lilypond to meeting X or conference Y.

Not only does announcing Lilypond to meeting X or conference Y (which I do all the time) help spread the word — ex: of the 20 Colorado composers, only 1 had even heard of Lilypond prior to the session — but there's a chance [slim, I admit] that one or more of those attendees might have the skill and interest to improve Lilypond.

- approximately 300 *known* bugs that produce garbage output that
  nobody's working on.  (there's about 10-15 bugs that people are
  working on)

I'd love to see CodaMusic's bug list.  ;)

The new website is better than the old one;
I don't think we need any more advocacy than that.

Not only do I think that the new website [design] is not particularly attractive — which, to most visitors, means the product must be similarly unattractive — but *no* product survives on a website alone, no matter how sexy the CSS.

We really could use 5-10 times the amount of developer-effort if we're serious about it.

+1 (or maybe +2).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]