Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <address@hidden> writes:

> On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
>> Op donderdag 12-11-2009 om 08:41 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef David
>> Kastrup:
>>
>>> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> _Addressing_ the actual problems is definitely more suitably done
>>> on the
>>> developer list.
>>>
>>
>> So what are the actual problems?  Is LilyPond really too difficult?
>
> Well, in a word, yes.  OK, that's too glib because the second question
> is "too difficult for what" and that wasn't asked.  It's too difficult
> (as in the learning curve is too steep and seems practically infinite)
> for the majority of casual users who will give it a try.  You do have
> to look at it through naive eyes to see that the start of the learning
> curve is like standing at the base of Monolith when all one wanted was
> to go for a little hike.

Can't say I agree here all too much.  Scheme-less Lilypond is reasonably
comfortable to write.  You can start with an abc-like subset.

> I have mastered LilyPond just enough to do the simple jazz lead sheets
> I need (and am not quite there yet- I get flummoxed by something on
> every other score).  I've tried to interest a lot of fellow jazz
> musicians (some of them college professors, high powered professionals
> and some pro musicians, all of them quite intelligent) and to a person
> they threw up their hands within minutes.  I know one other jazz
> musician who uses LilyPond, the rest use Finale (or just do charts by
> hand).  Once one has to resort to hacks to get stuff done, it becomes
> a brute-force approach which is beyond the interest of (IMHO) the vast
> majority of users.

Yes.  Which is why I'd like to accompany LSR-snippets by "if the world
were ideal" hack-less snippets which don't run (yet!).

> It happens pretty quickly on pretty simple charts that one has to use
> overrides and the like to get glyphs to position correctly, which
> means that new users are likely very frustrated with output issues
> (e.g., "why is the coda glyph appearing there when I put it here?").

And one should not need to position coda glyphs at all.  Tell Lilypond
the repeat structure and let it do the typesetting.  Overrides and
manual glyphing for facsimile reproductions are fine as a fallback, but
they should not be the rule.

> Now, don't get me wrong.  LilyPond produces better looking sheet music
> than anything else I have seen.

MusiXTeX gives pretty usable output as well, at the cost of horrific
manual work, illegible input and an interfering idiosyncratic
typesetting engine.  The Lilypond tradeoff is much better, but it needs
to get better still.

Simple things need to be consistently simple.

> One question is how LilyPond positions itself in the market.  As it
> currently stands, it is not for the average user.  It is an
> application squarely aimed at power users who enjoy the problem-
> solving aspect of dealing with using two different languages
> simultaneously (LilyPond's LaTeX-like markup language and Scheme)

You are forgetting C++ which is required for translators AFAICS.

> and don't mind the challenge of making the application produce the
> output you want.  It is not for the musician who just wants a chart
> with a minimum of fuss and time.

I use it for that as well.  That's fine until you run into an unexpected
road block.

> People often get mad when things like this are said because it seems
> to negate the hundreds or thousands of hours they put into
> development.  I certainly do not mean to do that and hope that no one
> takes it that way.  As I said earlier, LilyPond is an amazingly
> powerful program.  But that power may mean that it has a limited
> market appeal.

As long as simple things are simple to do, power does not harm.

> NotePad has probably three orders of magnitude more users than Emacs
> for the same reasons- relatively few users need the power and
> flexibility of Emacs because they just want to write a quick note to
> Aunt Martha.

Nowadays it is more because people using Notepad hear the stories from
people who had exposure to Emacs 20 years ago and got frustrated.

Today's Emacs gets very little into your hair when you are just trying
to use it in the "obvious" way.

> There is nothing wrong with that.  It may very well be that trying to
> cater to casual users who just want to make a simple score or a rock
> tune or a folk song or something like that is not realistic for
> LilyPond.

Hm?  That's what I mostly use it for.

> Nothing wrong with that either.  It's a badass powerful music
> engraving application, after all.

Try MusiXTeX for a week.  Should be a perspective-changer.

-- 
David Kastrup