Re: Do we really offer the future?

[PMA]

> Am 22.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> > We try to explain this away by saying that LP is an engraving tool,
> > not a composition tool, but -- if we're really serious about making LP
> > more attractive to the "average" user of notation software, this is
> > too glib.
In using LilyPond for all my compositions, I regard it as
emphatically _not_ a composition tool, but an engraver
only.  (Likewise re its "front ends".)  Most compositional
issues I work out in a general-purpose language (mine
is "J" but, y'know, whatever) with translation routines to
output LP code.  'Sed' does most intermediate editing
(usually to adjust to broad cosmetic changes), before
some inevitable final 'vi' fussing "by hand".

So major compositional changes -- the ones we're
calling "structural" here -- are implemented at that
first (gen.purp.prog.lang) level, tossing LP not much
to trip over then or fail to carry through.

My point, then: Why stuff a complicated-enough
engraving program with (compositional) issues
that by nature demand more abstract handling?

But then, not everyone is an algo-comp nut.  (I am,
but only re process, with results usually for piano.)

- Pete