Am 07.12.2013 20:18, schrieb Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
On 07/12/13 20:05, Urs Liska wrote:
I have to throw in a comparison:
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/uploads/pics/07_02.png
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/uploads/pics/finale2008_one-system.png
These are an excerpt from a copyright piece, but I've got permission
to display
in the context of a tutorial and of a blog post (they're in my plain
text essay
on the blog).
I think this is a very good example for the fact that LilyPond often
manages to
produce legible layout even if it fails. Actually the only thing
that's _really_
wrong with this example is the long slur - but that's of the kind I
wouldn't
expect any automated engraving to manage.
Finale (admittedly 2008 - but LilyPond is 2.13 too IIRC) managed to
clash about
every conceivable grob in this case.
Yes, but you're comparing default behaviour to default behaviour. I
think we can all agree that Lilypond almost invariably wins in that
comparison.
The reason I proposed a competent-user-vs-competent-user comparison is
that a competent user wouldn't leave those clashes in place but would
manually tweak them. If those manual tweaks are quick-and-easy to
make, then those faults of default behaviour may be considered much
less serious.
You may have a look at this and the following pages:
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/notensatz/lilypond-tutorials/tackle-complex-tasks/part-2-improving-the-output.html
It is quite outdated, but it shows that the steps to fix the score in
LilyPond are quite manageable (in particular with \shape or the new
\shapeII), while I think fixing the Finale part (reliably) will be much
more problematic, at least with this kind of music where the complexity
leads to that amount of catastrophic results as in the Finale version.
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
