On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:45:24PM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: > On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote: > > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > >> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms > >> of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified > >> dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly > >> and is going to scare off potential users). > > > > > > I don't understand how this could be possible. Does anyone talk > > about the need to simplify the syntax of Latex? Of Perl? > > Let me respond as a musician rather than as a programmer, because I > am the first and I am not the second. A lot of the syntax of > Lilypond makes little sense except perhaps to people used to coding. > If you're a musician, the first months of trying to use Lilypond can > be little more than an exercise in frustration. There are several > reasons for this, including:
That's an excellent write up, Tim. It describes my experience with Lilypond over the last seven years perfectly. I also agree with your analysis of why it is that way, and what is both good and bad about it. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
