9 Jul
2004
9 Jul
'04
12:06 p.m.
saraband <darwin886(a)yahoo.ca> writes:
--- Immanuel Litzroth <immanuell(a)enfocus.be>
wrote: >
Mikhail Ramendik <mr(a)ramendik.ru> writes:
the record, I am a
working musician and I use PMW
(Philip's Music Writer) - a typesetting programme
similar to Lilypond. I've tried many programmes, and
I find coding (particularly with PMW) to be far more
intuitive and versatile than the pointy-clicky
commercial programmes.
I am a musician and a programmer and my experience is the same
as yours, but I was wondering if this was my experience as a programmer
which made me prefer lilypond.
Immanuel
Hello,
Any sort of alphabetic medium for typesetting
notes is about as "right"
for a professional musician as it would be
"right"
for a programmer to
somehow write programs in the language of musical
score. So Lilyopnd is
simply off track.
Can you explain why and
"alphabetic medium" is not
"right"?
The success of TeX for formula editing came, I
think, from the fact that
TeX somehow matches the way a scientist *thinks*
about a formula. But
IMHO, neither Lilypond nor any other alphabetic
editor can approach the
way a musician thinks about score! And that's
why
this won't work.
Can you explain how a musician thinks about a score,
and how this cannot be
expressed in alphabetic editor?
Immanuel
I'm not sure I follow Mikhail's argument, but for