Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:44 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> If you want an example of reasonable documenting and coding practice, >> take tex.web (it is public domain), run it through weave and pdftex >> and peruse significant extracts of the resulting PDF. > > While tex.web is a beautiful example of literate programming, it was > > a. created by one the worlds' foremost computer scientists.
Well, that's like calling St. Paul one of the worlds' foremost popes. I don't see that as a disqualifying factor. His Pascal coding is definitely not more obfuscate than LilyPond on average. > b. created for a program whose behavior and code was to be set in stone. A module doing a certain job should be doing that job good enough to be able to do it in 10 years. Documenting it is not amiss. > I think that looking at tex.web will not give anyone practical answers > on how to structure their lilypond code. I was talking about "reasonable documenting and coding practice". That does not involve how to structure things. As I said, we are talking about post-1960s Pascal coding, and he tried his best to still present things in a structured way, in well-documented meaningful chunks. Nowadays we have much more modular programming languages, and we make a mess of it. I consider doing good work with bad tools a better example than doing bad work with good tools. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
