Re: MUP and LilyPond (fwd)

[Martin Tarenskeen]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:33:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Tarenskeen <address@hidden>
To: Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: MUP and LilyPond



On Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Janek Warchoł wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've just found an email of yours in the archives
> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-12/msg00198.html)
> where you compare LilyPond and Mup.  Could you tell me if your opinion
> on this subject has changed?
>
> thanks,
> Janek

Ah, that was 5 years ago. In those years my preference shifted from Mup to 
LilyPond.

Flexibility: LilyPond wins
Beauty of the output: LilyPond wins (matter of taste)
Speed: Mup wins
Size and Weight: Mup (including documentation) is much smaller Easy and fast 
compilation from sources: Mup
Open and Free sofware: today BOTH are Open Source and Free and part of (for 
example) the official Fedora repositories.
Dedicated editors: Frescobaldi is MUCH better than Mupmate
Documentation: MUP documention can be smaller because MUP is more limited. 
LilyPond documentation is good but huge.
Community: There is more traffic in the LilyPond mailing list than in the Mup 
mailing list.

Mup is quite good and has some advantages (speed, lightweight, flexible MIDI 
output commands) but I have learnt to appreciate the unlimited flexibility of 
LilyPond. It's easier to learn usage and syntax for only one program instead of 
two. I got confused when I was using both Mup and LilyPond. So I decided to 
only use LilyPond for new projects.

--

MT