Re: I'd like to help and solve <> misunderstanding - if i can...

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> Of course i'm not in a position to instruct you; i'd just like to
> share my thoughts.
>
> I think some of you take this discussion too personally and i'm afraid
> that this can result (already resulted?) in a serious conflict :(

The most hated and despised man after a syphilitic outbreak in a small
town is the gynecologist.

> Meanwhile other people expressed their concerns about how it looks
> like, the /syntax/ (user interface, not technical details).

Here is when the syntax and user interface were established:
<URL:http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2003-08/msg00133.html>

But guess who is burnt at the stake for it right now.

> From what i see, this is the problem: some of you argue about two
> different things, treating them as if they were one issue.

Differentiating inseparable things is a bit academic and will not win
you much loving.

> I suppose that the people who support <> are disappointed because from
> their point of view it may *look like* others are denying the
> technical benefits of using <>.

Correction: the benefits of acknowledging its existence.

> On the other hand, those who don't like <> are disappointed because it
> *seems* that their concerns are ignored.

Han-Wen ignored their concerns in 2003 (well, not quite fair: he _did_
vocalize them and asked for opinions, and the response at that time
favored his choice).

> Everyone loses :(
> Please, consider rethinking this situation.

Rethinking this situation is the reason I have hardly slept for two
nights.  I doubt this being helpful.

> I can say that some time ago in a discussion i had expressed some
> concerns about user-friendliness of a piece of code.  Later i realized
> that there was a serious misunderstanding on my side.  Eventually the
> code i initially criticized was turned into a very useful patch, which
> made using Lily noticeably easier.

"Noticeably"?  Take a look at the discussion and review.  Nobody except
you ever noticed.  And it is not like you started on an enthusiastic
note.

> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:54 PM, James <address@hidden> wrote:
>> If this were some obscure change that 'most' LP users didn't use - '#{
>> ... #}' seemed to get everyone really excited for instance, I just
>> shrugged, I've never used it, don't even know why I would or if I
>> could or when I shoul. Or maybe I have but didn't know it?
>
> If i understand correctly, everyone uses Scheme functions all the
> time: when you \transpose, you use a Scheme function.  \relative is
> also a Scheme function.  There is lots of Scheme wrapped nicely in
> commands starting with backslashes.
> When the #{ ... #} change was made, i didn't see any change in my Lily
> workflow, too.  I still don't know what exactly that change meant (i'd
> like to learn this some day, though).

It means that the non-programmer types can escape from having to use
Scheme almost everywhere.  Instead of having to write
(ly:make-pitch 2 3 1/2) in Scheme code (and music functions are Scheme),
they can write #{ fis''' #}.

Check out the enthusiastic reviews for this one:
<URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2286>
<URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/5633043>

Of course, not everything is apathy.  If I get feedback, it is commonly
in the form of
<URL:http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-12/msg00247.html>
or similar.

> But i know that it makes things simpler for other developers, and it
> will allow them to design better LilyPond.

No.  The #{ #} stuff is not for the benefit of core programmers
comfortable with using Scheme.  You see what Ian has to say about that.

It does not allow anybody to design better LilyPond.  It only makes it
easier to use.  Most of the resulting changes in the LilyPond
distribution have been in documentation and snippets.

It is for the benefit of users who occasionally have to do tasks that
can't be done without reverting to LilyPond's programming features, and
those will be able to minimize contact with Scheme.

But this thread is about being able to minimize contact with LilyPond,
by refraining from documenting it.

> We will all benefit - indirectly.

And I will get indirect loving to compensate for the direct hate of what
I do.

Finch's landing all over.  Which reminds me: "To Kill a Mockingbird" is
definitely very good reading, and not just because Groklaw and lawsuits
have recently becoming much more ubiquitous.

-- 
David Kastrup