On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 3:46 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.
"I'm making a mess of my drawings, how should I organize my work?" "well, just have a look at DaVinci's sketches." they are certainly an example, but it's not much by way of practical advice. >> 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. What is your practical advice for coding practices, then? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
