Re: Replying to posts

[Carl Sorensen]

On 4/28/16 6:26 AM, "Wols Lists" <address@hidden> wrote:

>On 28/04/16 12:43, Chris Yate wrote:
>>
>> 
>> "Shiny" isn't necessarily "improved" but they're not mutually
>> exclusive. Would you suggest Frescobaldi is *not* a big improvement in
>> the User Interface for Lilypond development?
>> 
>Horses for courses - if you like it, great.
>
>But actually, for *my* use case, it probably really IS NOT an
>improvement! I've never used it, never tried it, never had any desire
>to. Can you use it to enter a score, and then get it to generate all the
>individual parts for you?

Well, in the Choir templates I use, it's really easy to get a full score,
a piano accompaniment, piano accompaniment plus choir reduction (useful
for the pianist who wants fewer page turns but needs to provide both the
accompaniment and parts during rehearsal), combined midi, and individual
midi parts.  It would require only a minor change (of a few minutes) to
provide individual voice parts as well.

It doesn't work like make, and only make the parts I ask for when I
compile.  Instead, it makes them all.  But that might be a plus because
they are all in synch now.

The biggest drawback I see to Frescobaldi is that it has its own editing
syntax, so I can't use the vi commands that I'm so used to in programming.
 But that drawback is not enough to keep me from using it.  I've cut my
score creation time in less than half by using Frescobaldi.

But I consider Frescobaldi to be a tool that helps use LilyPond.  I value
the independent nature of LilyPond, because of the various use cases it
provides (e.g. Denemo).  So I would not want LilyPond to be subsumed by
Frescobaldi.  So I don't consider Frescobaldi to be an improvement in
LilyPond.  If Frescobaldi tried to get in the way of LilyPond (like Denemo
does), I wouldn't use it at all.  I want to be able to access pure
LilyPond.

Thanks,

Carl