Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

[David Kastrup]

Sorry for the post in triplicate.  Gmane's response time confused me.

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> I think that sums up very well why somebody would prefer not working
>> with Lilypond.  Not only do you have to rely on expert advice, but the
>> main advice is "please do what an expert would do, or shut up".
>
> Please show me where I said anything resembling "shut up"...?

Well, I omitted the other option "or whine on".  My fault.

More pointedly: for every question I asked, you basically replied: could
you please answer this question yourself and contribute the answer?  And
that, while a popular way to stifle contributions, is not a reasonable
expectation.  The first stumbling steps don't teach you what the best
way to walk is, and how to teach others to walk.

>> If there is no reasonable way to become an expert
>
> As we both (all) know, there IS a "reasonable way to become an expert"
> at Lilypond

No.  A _reasonable_ way to become an expert is by reading into
increasingly more expert-level documentation and working with it.

"Humanly possible" is not the same as "reasonable".  "Reasonable"
entails a collective effort not to repeat avoidable work and
frustration.

>> Now I am in the situation of being an expert _programmer_.  If you
>> had actually bothered taking a look at recent postings of mine, you
>> would have noticed that I am trying to get some functionality into
>> Lilypond.
>
> I *have* "actually bothered taking a look at recent postings" of yours
> — in fact, I thoroughly read almost every post on this list.  Hence, I
> had noticed that you are contributing, and was therefore wondering
> aloud if you would be adding more functionality to solve the
> problem(s) you were highlighting — specifically, I wondered if you
> were able [technically] to do so,

I am able to create functionality.  I am not able to guess what the
Lilypond way of adding this functionality would be.  I don't like doing
work that does not benefit others.  I don't like incoherent interfaces
and bad code.  I don't see how I can avoid doing those.

I am not interested into prodding Lilypond to accidentally produce
output that matches what I need.  I want Lilypond to understand
straightforward instructions in its Lilypond way to get the output I
want.  For that I need to understand the Lilypond way of doing this, and
the available information is not sufficient.  "Please create this
information" does not make sense, since there presumably _is_ something
like coding style or idea behind Lilypond, and guessing from code is
unreliable.

> and might be doing so in the near future: “Any chance you can/will
> improve it?”

I can't improve what I can't see or understand.

>> if there is roadmap, design and vision, I have not yet been able to
>> find it in the obvious places I have been looking for.
>
> Then I think that needs to be fixed — suggestions on where in the
> documentation this roadmap/design/vision should be?

The internals documentation should likely spell out the layers of C++,
Scheme, Music macros and what one can hope to reasonably implement in
what layer.  What new functionality requires equivalence of new
engravers or performers, can one implement them in Scheme, does one need
C++, and what exactly does one _do_ when creating them?

The extending documentation should point people to what kind of stuff
they need to consider for adding things like chords, lyrics, general
bass, tabs and so on themselves: what layers need to be meddling with
for what task, what will work only with recompilation, what might work
with Scheme code.  Give a sketch of the layout of some existing
functionality in Lilypond, and what one would need to add it if it did
not exist.

>> I don't see that anything is gained for chastising me for my
>> impression.
>
> Once again, I ask you to please point out exactly (with quotations)
> where I “chastised” you... since I clearly didn't intend to, I want to
> know how to avoid having my intentions misinterpreted in the future.

If a posting does not contain anything except "please contribute this
yourself", it is not likely to cause anything but annoyance.

The topic was why people find Lilypond too cumbersome to use.  I gave
reasons, and the reaction "please change it yourself" is not addressing
the topic at all.  It also delivers the impression that the current
state is basically my fault and responsibility, and nothing needs to be
done about it that I don't do myself.

-- 
David Kastrup