On 02/12/18 11:31, David Kastrup wrote: > J Martin Rushton <martinrushto...@btinternet.com> 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"! In either case may I concur with your comments about Frescobaldi - It is a nice compromise between GUI/IDE/text and does make life a lot easier for occasional users. I was going to include Frescobaldi in my email to Alethis but as I mentioned they don't seem to want to be contacted which is odd for a "professional software consulting services". Regards, Martin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
