Re: [oll-user] Finally, the revised instructions - please review!

[Janek W. <lem...@gm...>]

2014-01-29 Marc Sabatella <ma...@ou...>

>  No apology necessary!  There's no shame, of course, in having a
> hypothesis going in to an experiment.  And don't get me wrong, either.  I
> might be a MuseScore fanboy in some respects, but I have no illusions
> here.  I am quite sure that overall, for the sort of tasks these challenges
> are setting forth (taking existing music and creating a new edition of it),
> LilyPond as well other similar well-implemented command-line programs (I'm
> partial to abcm2ps, and I hope someone volunteers to champion it here!) are
> going to do very well in comparison to most WYSIWYG programs.  Not that
> having a command line versus WYSIWYG interface makes an inherent difference
> in how one implements one's layout algorithms, but I do think there is
> likely to be correlation in philosophies and this is going to affect where
> one spends one's energies in implementation.  That is, the developers of a
> WYSIWYG program are likely to have priorities *other* than layout, and it's
> likely layout will suffer for this.  So I would say I share your hypothesis
> here.  But perhaps not the value judgement you inadvertently associated
> with it.
>
> In my mind there are really multiple sets of tradeoffs involved when
> comparing notation programs.  One is the tradeoff we are focusing on here:
> between having fewer manual adjustments necessary versus having those
> manual adjustments easier to perform.  Also, by incorporating version
> control - which I think is a good thing, because it *is* important in a
> collaborative project - the challenges also touch on possible tradeoffs
> between having text-based formats versus binary formats.  Except of course,
> if there *are* advantages to binary, nothing in these challenges is likely
> to expose it.
>
> But there are other tradeoffs that might be relevant in other sorts of
> comparisons.  And the ones that interest me most come into play when using
> a notation program as a compositional tool as opposed to reproducing
> existing music.  My hypothesis is that in the same sense that command-line
> programs will tend to have the upper hand in layout-based comparisons,
> WYSIWYG programs will tend to have the upper hand in
> compositional-process-based comparisons.  Unfortunately, the
> compositional-process comparisons would, I think, be much, much, harder to
> perform in even the most minimally objective sense than layout comparisons.
>
> Still, the next interesting question to me is, to what extent are the
> layout advantages of one given program offset by the compositional-process
> advantages of another?  And, recognizing that layout is, in the end at
> least, also potentially an important part of the compositional process, to
> what extent are further improvements in layout for a given program more
> important than further improvements elsewhere in the compositional process,
> even for someone more focused on composition than on reproduction?
>
> These are the issues that MuseScore has been grappling with and that will
> increase in importance going forward.  So to me, it is interesting to get a
> sense for how *big* the gap in layout facilities is between MuseScore and
> other programs including LilyPond.  Perhaps even more interesting is the
> matter of identifying, if possible, the biggest bang-for-the-buck areas for
> improvement.  But the goal I would have in mind wouldn't be to beat
> LilyPond at its own game - just to get a better sense of where MuseScore
> stands with respect to the tradeoff between layout and compositional
> process, to help MuseScore improve *its* own game.
>

what can i say? +1 for everything :-)

best,
Janek

PS sorry for such terse answer - i'd love to discuss more, but i have no
time :(
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...