[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

From: Hans Aberg
Subject: Re: Score parts: instrument and duration
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:54:35 +0200

On 16 Aug 2005, at 15:18, Erik Sandberg wrote:

The comparison between TeX/LaTeX and Lilypond is not completely relevant. Lilypond uses a different development model. You can see the current lilypond as a less generic TeX, with most of LaTeX's functionality hardcoded into it. Lily is gradually refactoring so that more and more of the hardcoded stuff
can get softcoded. In this process, we sometimes sacrifice backward
compatibility (which some of our users rightfully dislike). One possible effect of this, could be that lilypond gradually turns into a "TeX2", instead
of needing to be rewritten.

I just wanted a picture to focus. Making LilyPond more and more soft- coded, striving for a smaller and smaller kernel, seems good. It will not only increase generality, but also reduce the amount of bugs. When you know more about the different features, perhaps a better syntax would be in place. I do not know exactly what it would be; just a hunch. A thing that you may not have thought about, is that it seems important to get all this old music into the computer, in just some representation. Once one has that, making translations to new formats, at least in essential parts, should be fairly easy. It is then probably good if as much as possible of typesetting rendering can be automated, both simplifying authoring and the input format. But TeX was developed once, too. Its author got tired, putting the lid on further development, having the copyright. It could happen with LilyPond, too, if one arrives the point where one has the reached limits of the current setup.

  Hans Aberg

reply via email to

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