Re: Appreciation / Financial support

[David Kastrup]

Colin Hall <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:45:24PM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara
>> > <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
>> >> of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
>> >> dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly
>> >> and is going to scare off potential users).
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I don't understand how this could be possible.  Does anyone talk
>> > about the need to simplify the syntax of Latex?  Of Perl?
>> 
>> Let me respond as a musician rather than as a programmer, because I
>> am the first and I am not the second.  A lot of the syntax of
>> Lilypond makes little sense except perhaps to people used to coding.
>> If you're a musician, the first months of trying to use Lilypond can
>> be little more than an exercise in frustration.  There are several
>> reasons for this, including:
>
> That's an excellent write up, Tim. It describes my experience with
> Lilypond over the last seven years perfectly.
>
> I also agree with your analysis of why it is that way, and what is
> both good and bad about it.

I think we can do better, but it does not happen by itself.  Perhaps one
byproduct of my comparatively old age is that I am quite more willing to
interpret "it is too hard for me" as "it is too hard" rather than "I am
too stupid".  It is the prerequisite of youth, in particular programming
youth, to get good initial return of investment for coding based on the
"I am too stupid" angle, whereas I make as much backward as forward
progress in that area.  On the other hand, I have the experience for
getting the "it is too hard" angle under control in a somewhat planned
manner: while I suck at the efficiency of making every step, at least I
know where I want to be going.

-- 
David Kastrup