Re: Lilypond speed

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:42:15PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> 2009/8/4 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> > There you go:
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2005-11/msg00024.html
> 
> This is huge! (I suspect I wasn't subscribed to -devel when this was
> posted, otherwise I'd have noticed it).
>
> Even though there's clearly no magic recipe to speed up LilyPond
> (except multi-threading, but we're nowhere near implementing it), the
> server approach could be very, very useful for all kind of purposes.

Why do people never believe me when I say that there's tons of
cool stuff we /could/ do, if only more people helped out?

If the website was finished earlier (i.e. if people contributed
content), then I'd have worked on this during the summer.  If more
people helped out, we could have a much better set of "safe"
lilypond commands.  The above two points would let us run
multi-threaded web-available lilypond servers for doing multiple
small snippets at once.  If more people helped out, we could have
started+finished GLISS already, and have a stable syntax (for the
commands).  If more people helped out, we might actually have a
*decreasing* list of issues.

There are tons of cool stuff we /could/ do.  In my idle moments, I
make plans of how it would be organized, how the overall work
structure would go, etc.  But there's no point trying to do cool
stuff unless the foundation is solid.  We need more people working
on those foundations.

Cheers,
- Graham

PS yes, I was planning on writing an article about all the cool
stuff we *could* be doing, if only people helped out with the
mundane/routine jobs, as a continuation of my Report contribution.
Of course, there's no point writing the sequel until the first one
is published.