Am Samstag, den 20.04.2013, 13:05 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: > Colin Hall <colingh...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Here is a piece of opinion from me, so you know my position. Users of > > WYSIWYG engraving software accept the shortcomings because it is quick > > and effective. Users of text-based approaches accept the additional > > effort required because they are perfectionists. > > Actually, I tend to use text-based approaches not really because I care > about the perfection of the result, but because it allows me to properly > separate input, tool and output. Things like the accuracy of my mouse > positioning don't figure into the result. That's a good point. I share this opinion. I think the quality of output is less a selling point compared to the 'big players' than the organizational potential inherent in the text format.
> Which make the result > actually worse than when working WYSIWYG. But the responsibility for > that lies with the process, it is reproducible, and it will respond to > future improvements of the process. > > Old scores of mine keep getting better without me having to invest any > work into any of them. Is that really that much different from other approaches? I don't know, but if you open Finale scores in newer versions they should also benefit from improvements, isn't it? Urs > That's hard to beat if they are "good enough" to > start with. And if you are lazy like me, you won't invest much work of > your own beyond "good enough" into any individual score. > _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
