Hi Urs, really interesting! I have just some short comments. Am 2014-04-04 um 16:43 schrieb Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org>:
> treble F 4/4 is the equivalent to > > \clef treble > \key f \major > \time 4/4 > > (,9 .... ),10_a140140h30 > seems to be an equivalent to a \shape invocation > > Personally I think that LilyPond's approach is a very good compromise between > Amadeus' assembler-like appearance and the confusing verbosity of e.g. XML > formats. But this is something Henle's engraver would consider a significant > problem because he thinks that he needs considerably less time entering the > music in Amadeus. I learned LinoSetting in vocational school and saw colleagues use a Berthold system at the newspaper where I studied typesetter. I learned to write PostScript by hand and I use TeX. My second word processor was WordStar (you know those dot commands?) on DOS (my first was Scripsit on TRSDOS). Just to prove I know old input methods... These „ancient“ typesetting „languages“ (Lino, Berthold) are very similar to that Amadeus „assembler“ as LilyPond is to TeX. (Maybe NOTE is like PostScript, I don’t care.) LinoSetting could do great things, but I really prefer TeX, it’s much more readable. And that’s the advantage of LilyPond over Amadeus, I think. Of course a professional daily working in „Assembler“ is faster in writing. But is he in reading/bugfixing? > I don't suggest any significant changes in our input syntax. But I want to > point out that editing efficiency on that level _is_ an issue we should keep > taking into account when it comes to professional work. For this guy it makes > a difference if he can (thousands of times) type "ho" instead of "\stemUp". > And we all know that the process of tweaking output isn't that > straightforward with LilyPond (although I very much appreciate all the little > and bigger improvements we constantly see). The backslash is a slow-downer in fast typing, at least on German keyboards, esp. on German Mac keyboards, where you have to press Alt-Shift-7. But for everyone who is NOT producing scores on piece-rate – and that is MOST users of ANY music typesetting system, I’m sure – this doesn’t matter. If the typing speed would really be so important, more people would use advanced keyboard layouts like Neo. > In another context I see a similar thing with LaTeX: Compiling a file with > lualatex and fontspec takes longer by orders of magnitude than with plain > latex. So maybe we really have a conceptual issue with the efficiency of > LilyPond's runtime work. Hm, ConTeXt (MkIV/LuaTeX) can be really slow - on the other hand you have a lot of control over internals. I guess you can’t script Amadeus like you can LilyPond with Scheme – if the whole code is hard-compiled, it must be faster. Or is this a false assumption? Greetlings, Hraban --- fiëé visuëlle Henning Hraban Ramm http://www.fiee.net http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/ https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer) _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
