On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: > Basically I'd be interested in an estimate if there are practical > limitations where one would be better off skipping a commission because > LilyPond would be at its limit.
I don’t think it’s likely to happen anytime soon. Many, many users over the years have been dealing with massive scores, including some fairly odd things which no piece of software other than LilyPond would have been able to deal with: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2007-11/msg00474.html My personal record so far is a 360-pages orchestral score in one single \book{} block, involving a dozen ugly hacks and thousands of invisible duplicated notes etc., and I encountered absolutely *no* problem with regard to RAM, CPU or programming aspects; if anything, LilyPond has become noticeably better in recent years (not particularly faster even though rapidity has increased thanks to improved hardware). That being said, orchestral music is not what’s the most difficult to engrave (even dual-voices staves remain somewhat simple overall, even with unmetered contemporary notation, microtones, feathered beams etc.). To me, complex keyboard music is probably the worst, when it involves cross-staff polyphony, complex pedal and dynamic indications. At any rate, when it comes to written music, no matter how complex or sophisticated huge, I most certainly am not planning to use anything else than LilyPond, ever. And especially not in favor of a non-free program. Regards, Valentin. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
