[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Hushing up Sibelius news?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Hushing up Sibelius news?
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:51:48 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Adam Spiers <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Adam Spiers <address@hidden> writes:
>>> I just blogged about this:
>> Well, I see some fatally flawed assumptions here, riding on your notion
>> "both MuseScore and GNU LilyPond would serve as excellent starting
>> points for a world-class music notation product."
>> Now I can't vouch for MuseScore, but GNU LilyPond is anything but a
>> "starting point" for software development.  It is large with an
>> elaborate and complex architecture.  And most particularly, an
>> architecture that is not the core expertise of the former Sibelius
>> development team.
> I don't follow your logic here at all.  Being large and complex
> doesn't rule it out from being a starting point.

"Listen, engineering team, we have assembled to design and build the
most successful family car ever.  We don't have to start from scratch: I
already secured a shipment of 10000 trucks we can use as a starting

Being large is of advantage if the quality is consistent.  Being complex
is a legacy.  The LilyPond code base is not good in confining

> There are plenty of prominent examples where fresh projects succeeded
> by inheriting a large and complex codebase.  Firefox is one, and
> LibreOffice another; here's a great talk I attended at FOSDEM
> demonstrating precisely this:
> Those code-bases make LilyPond's look about as complex as two lines of
> BASIC ;-)

You are confusing large and complex.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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