|From:||Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool)|
|Subject:||Re: Real World Usage|
|Date:||Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:33:56 +0200|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (Windows/20090302)|
Well, WYSIWYM sucks by concept for one single reason. Typesetting can
not be totally automated because of hyphenation. |
So if you change something slightly that causes reflow, there is a small chance that a word gets hyphenated at the wrong place.
With WYSIWYM you should not care about this: an implicit expectation that it will automagically solve everything well. But that's just not the case.
And the same applies for LilyPond. After the first manual tweak (you'll certainly need SOME) you can never be sure any more that everything will be fine during the development of the score.
Martin Tarenskeen wrote:There is a parallel with LaTeX vs. GUI wordprocessors like Word or OpenOffice.org. These are two different worlds, but somewhere inbetween there is LyX. I kind of like the LyX approach.I like it too. it's real WYSIWYM. But some LyX users (and even developers) think it is (and should be) a "almost-WYSIWYG editor". In my opinion this would be a great error. LyX should never show pages and so on, just the meaning of the doc, and this is the revolutionary potential of LyX that even some developers IMHO didn't catch. A similar approach to Lily (and notational music) is quite hard to achieve, because music notation is quite a different thing than text. I mean: you perhaps can't avoid some heavy WYSIWYG and thus a Finale approach. But 1st one should ask himself "what do users need?" The 1st answer, I think, is "fast, exact music writing with clear meaning/structure representation and inmediate feed-back (better if visual and also audio)". In my opinion, this could be partially achieved in close future with a jEdit/lilypondtool-like editor with a sort of live-lilypond encoder which shows in almost real-time changes in the pdf or in other way. This could be achieved by a new ultra light "ugly" modality of Lily which doesn't care about aesthetics, lines and pages, just to show visual feedback of MUSIC and perhaps its logic/structure, not his final "form". But still I would mainly use a text editor like excellent jEdit. I don't know too much WYSIWYG editors for Lilypond (just tried Denemo) but I don't like them too much: IMHO they're very far from the LyX concept and perhaps always will be. The most important problem is that with every which one approach, it is hard to save one of Lilypond most important quality: the ability to use variables and to build music using its own internal logic. This is something that in text you don't need because strong and continuous internal reference and simmetry is a characteristic of music, not of text. Thus, the simpleness of LyX is ok, but I can't think about a "LiLyXpond" in any shape. LyX can graphically show the 99% of LaTeX code. A software able to graphically show the internals of a Lilypond logically structured file is almost difficoult to imagine, not mention to develop. ----- Piero Faustini, PhD student Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Sezione musicologia Università di Ferrara Main Software used: - LyX 1.6.1 on WinXP sp3; EndNote & JabRef - MikTex - LaTeX class: Koma book - Lilypond 2.12 for example excerpts - BibLaTeX for bibliographies
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|