[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MUP and LilyPond (fwd)
From: |
Martin Tarenskeen |
Subject: |
Re: MUP and LilyPond (fwd) |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:49:05 +0200 (CEST) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) |
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:33:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Tarenskeen <address@hidden>
To: Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: MUP and LilyPond
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Janek Warchoł wrote:
Hi,
I've just found an email of yours in the archives
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-12/msg00198.html)
where you compare LilyPond and Mup. Could you tell me if your opinion
on this subject has changed?
thanks,
Janek
Ah, that was 5 years ago. In those years my preference shifted from Mup to
LilyPond.
Flexibility: LilyPond wins
Beauty of the output: LilyPond wins (matter of taste)
Speed: Mup wins
Size and Weight: Mup (including documentation) is much smaller Easy and fast
compilation from sources: Mup
Open and Free sofware: today BOTH are Open Source and Free and part of (for
example) the official Fedora repositories.
Dedicated editors: Frescobaldi is MUCH better than Mupmate
Documentation: MUP documention can be smaller because MUP is more limited.
LilyPond documentation is good but huge.
Community: There is more traffic in the LilyPond mailing list than in the Mup
mailing list.
Mup is quite good and has some advantages (speed, lightweight, flexible MIDI
output commands) but I have learnt to appreciate the unlimited flexibility of
LilyPond. It's easier to learn usage and syntax for only one program instead of
two. I got confused when I was using both Mup and LilyPond. So I decided to
only use LilyPond for new projects.
--
MT
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: MUP and LilyPond (fwd),
Martin Tarenskeen <=