Adam Spiers <lilypond-u...@adamspiers.org> writes: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Adam Spiers <lilypond-u...@adamspiers.org> writes: >>> I just blogged about this: >>> >>> http://blog.adamspiers.org/2013/02/25/music-industry-learns-nothing-from-the-avid-sibelius-saga/ >> >> Well, I see some fatally flawed assumptions here, riding on your notion >> "both MuseScore and GNU LilyPond would serve as excellent starting >> points for a world-class music notation product." >> >> Now I can't vouch for MuseScore, but GNU LilyPond is anything but a >> "starting point" for software development. It is large with an >> elaborate and complex architecture. And most particularly, an >> architecture that is not the core expertise of the former Sibelius >> development team. > > I don't follow your logic here at all. Being large and complex > doesn't rule it out from being a starting point.
"Listen, engineering team, we have assembled to design and build the most successful family car ever. We don't have to start from scratch: I already secured a shipment of 10000 trucks we can use as a starting point." Being large is of advantage if the quality is consistent. Being complex is a legacy. The LilyPond code base is not good in confining complexity. > There are plenty of prominent examples where fresh projects succeeded > by inheriting a large and complex codebase. Firefox is one, and > LibreOffice another; here's a great talk I attended at FOSDEM > demonstrating precisely this: > > http://video.fosdem.org/2013/maintracks/Janson/LibreOffice__cleaning_and_re_factoring_a_giant_code_base.webm > > Those code-bases make LilyPond's look about as complex as two lines of > BASIC ;-) You are confusing large and complex. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
