[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Not Nice Review of the LilyPond

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Not Nice Review of the LilyPond
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 13:08:21 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

J Martin Rushton <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/12/18 11:31, David Kastrup wrote:
>> J Martin Rushton <address@hidden> writes:
>>> I'm not sure the single critical paragraph is that unfair.  I've turned
>>> the tables on the reviewer and added my own comments as an amateur who
>>> came to Lily only a few years ago.
>> [...]
>>> "LilyPond source files appear to be written in a custom programming
>>> language whose grammar is never discussed."
>>> - I'm afraid this one is bang on target.  However compare the situation
>>> to other systems and at least you can programme rather than just
>>> accepting a proprietary black box.
>> Well, this author went the mile and actually learnt how to work with
>> LilyPond before giving it a critical eye (and apparently sticking with
>> it).  I think we lose the majority of potential users even before
>> getting anywhere as far.  It's easy to laugh about those when they write
>> up their impression, but of course the problem _is_ real.
>> Frescobaldi is an impressive way to lower the threshold of getting
>> acquainted with LilyPond's way of working.  And Denemo is nice for not
>> getting all that much acquainted with LilyPond's way of working.
> Hi David.  I'm not quite sure whether you're telling me off for
> criticising the original author, or praising me for as "this author"!

Neither.  Sometimes I write stuff without specifically targeting a

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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