Re: Appreciation / Financial support

[David Kastrup]

Tim McNamara <address@hidden> writes:

> FWIW with today's exchange rate for Americans, the €15 I sent = US
> $19.37 (minus fees).  I don't know what the going hourly rate for
> developers is where David lives;

If you pay by the hour, ridiculous (sth like €120 is not rare), but
there are jobs paid by the "guessed number of hours", and you know how
accurately programmers guess.  The last job I had paid about three times
what I want to _arrive_ at in some distant future, at 30hr/week.

> at US average wages for programmers my $19.37 would at best pay for
> about 30 minutes of his time.  I can afford to send about that every
> month.  What David *could* be making working at a job underscores the
> need for many Lilypond users to be contributing- he would need 320
> people a month each contributing €15 to be competitive with having a
> regular full time job (and he still would not be getting many of the
> benefits that would come with traditional employment- at least seen
> through the lens of how self-employment works in America).

There is no real competition involved: I am living at home, can go
outside and talk to horses whenever I need to think, lose no time
commuting, am available at short notice when my girlfriend needs a hand.
I certainly don't end up with less than 40hr of "work" any week, but
much of the work involves brooding.  I never really get into hassles
with customers (only everybody I am communicating with), and "sure, this
code is a piece of crap, but leave it alone and/or patch another layer
of ugliness on top" does not occur.  If I want to fix things, I am
allowed to do it.  This job is a good fit for me, and that's why I want
to keep it.  So the point of comparison for me is not what I might be
able to make elsewhere, but what I need for staying on board.

It may sound impressive to talk about sacrifice and whatever, but in
truth I have autistic traits and am a pennypincher.  There are not many
expenses I actually derive significant enjoyment from.  No family to
support, no kids.  No moral qualms around closed software.  So in the
currency of deriving satisfaction from life, this is a better deal for
me than it would be for a lot of others.  The only problem is to keep it
sustainable.

> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
> of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
> dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly and
> is going to scare off potential users).  Having someone working full
> time on Lilypond is a great way to get that done in under a decade.

The syntax will _not_ be simplified dramatically since LilyPond,
overall, has a reasonably simple syntax.  And dramatic simplifications
are nothing I can sneak in sideways anyway: that is GLISS material.  One
obvious simplification for an accordion player like me would be to unite
chord and note mode (currently tremolo notation interferes) since the
common accompaniment patterns are something like c c': g c': (can you
guess what I mean here?).

It would be nice to have fewer incompatible modes, and simpler ways of
extending them.

And "the C++ must go" with regard to how LilyPond can be extended.  If
parts of LilyPond require "object orientation", then the respective
tools need to be available from Scheme.  No user can be expected to
recompile.

-- 
David Kastrup