Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond.
>
> Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this
> list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable
> for Lilypond.
>
> In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this:
> 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never*
> have to see Lilypond “code”);

According to the advertising, that's Denemo.

> or 2. Robust (i.e., essentially ‘transparent’) MusicXML input/output
> (so that users can input items in the tool of their choice, and use
> Lilypond for output only).

"LilyPond for output only" is not much of a goal: it buys us bug reports
without buying us a community interested in working with and on
LilyPond.  It's probably somewhat tantamount to those maintaining
Ghostscript, by now a probably somewhat frustrating task.

MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something
needed for a variety of reasons.  If it's needed for note input on a
continuing basis, we should ask ourselves how we can encourage existing
input tools or editors to do better.  Of course, a robust input of
material that _has_ already been input previously is still independently
useful.

-- 
David Kastrup