> > > 2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not >> that you >> can get it right there too. >> > > Sibelius doesn't get things automatically right as well as Lilypond does, > but it's usually much, much easier to correct or customize them when it > doesn't give you what you want, which in turn means that it's easier to get > what you want in general. But the lack of automation does make you > vulnerable to idiots who don't do proper quality control or who have no > clue about what is wanted. > > I don't know if you use or have used Sibelius, but if you're judging it > solely on the grounds of the bad parts you get from bad suppliers, you're > not really assessing the software at all. The real measure of engraving > software shouldn't be, "How readily does it stop an idiot from getting it > wrong?" but, "How readily does it let a user achieve the notation they want > to achieve?" > > For the record, I'm not speaking out in favour of Sibelius in any general > sense here. I just think that one should try and understand why it is that > software like this has the user-base and staying power that it does. >
I've tried Sibelius and Finale (way back...) and I far prefer Lilypond to both. But I'm a C++ programmer that uses emacs 10h/day, I might be a little eccentric :-) Immanuel
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
