RE: Two different time signatures with different tuplets in 'em

[Andrew Bernard]

Dear Anonymous,

For you hide behind anonymity and will not give your name or sign your
messages with any appellation, despite me having asked twice. This can only
be considered impolite.

If you want to get assistance, insulting everybody and the software will not
get you anywhere.

You repeatedly refuse to provide minimal working examples despite repeated
perfectly kind requests.

Your comments insulting computer science are patently absurd.

The sort of abuse you write here is not welcome on any internet forum, let
alone this one.

This list has a moderator but nobody is ever banned or prevented from
posting. But would it be possible for you to moderate your ranting and
insults and absurdities? I am certain I speak for other list members in
requesting this.

Since you have time to compose long emails, do us all a favour and take the
time to read the article on how to ask good questions that was given to you
by Mr Morley, and take the recommendations to heart. People on this list try
to.

I am sure you music is of some interest, but I perceive that you are using
the wrong tool for the job. As somebody myself with a background in computer
music, I can say that a tool for notation, which is a visual communication
medium, is not an optimal choice for instructing computers in the generation
of fine grained time sliced musical events. You are barking up the wrong
tree.

Nobody here has treated you with contempt. That is verging on paranoia.
Several of the skilled people here have devoted many hours to your queries.

Andrew





-----Original Message-----
From: lilypond-user
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
mclaren
Sent: Monday, 7 November 2016 9:12 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Two different time signatures with different tuplets in 'em

Given the acid contempt with which I've been treated, my working assumption
as a musician is that Lilypond programmers will make zero effort to fix any
bug in the Lilypond program, and so far my assumption has proven correct.
Experience shows that programmers are usually distinguished by their
ignorance and incompetence, and spend far more time denying that any bugs
exist than actually correcting them. 

Experience suggests that LISP stands for "Laughably Incompetent So-called
Programmer." If you want to add 2 + 2 and get 3, give the problem to a LISP
programmer. Fifty percent of all large programming projects in any language
end in failure. Computer "science" is still in the dark ages, at the level
of alchemy or the phlogiston theory of heat. Anyone who expects a programmer
to actually help fix any bugs in a large program is badly deluded, and as a
result, all end users must expect to be ridiculed, disdained, sneered at and
jeered at by programmers whenever they report a bug in a large program.  

Thus end users must go it alone and find workarounds for themselves.
Programmers will never lift a finger to help you when things go wrong.
Instead, the programmer will typically blame the victim: "Oh, the program is
supposed to work that way. That's a feature, not a bug." Or: "You shouldn't
want to do that, no user would ever want to do what you're doing."  

Musicians must develop a very thick skin and learn to expect this. The
crucial issue is to get a score, by whatever means possible, and then move
on. Practicing musicians quickly learn to regard programmers as a form of
damage and route around them.