[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
wikipedia...
From: |
Jan Nieuwenhuizen |
Subject: |
wikipedia... |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:58:02 +0200 |
Hi there,
Triggered by recent wikipedia messages, I had a peek at our
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilypond
page and found it still has the weird (long and not very
impressive) fire breathers example. Why the .ly at all,
better show impressive output and move .ly example
to a LilyPond_Language page?
Also, there are some pieces by Han-Wen from 2006 on the talk
page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GNU_LilyPond
quotes below. Can someone other than Han-wen or me take care of this?
Possibly it's no wonder that wikipedia doesn't use lilypond,
considering that our article on wikipedia is so bad?
Greetings,
Jan.
Hi,
I take issue with
While it has achieved this, the quality of output from
competing commercial packages has improved since the
inception of the LilyPond project so that they are now
comparable
because it implies that LilyPond can be considered "done" from a
typographical POV (which it isn't,
IMO). Furthermore, "comparable" is a vague statement: mosquitos
and elephants are comparable, and the result of the comparison
is that the elefant is bigger. Esthetics aren't well defined,
but most printout of Finale and Sibelius still (we're speaking
2006) looks made with a computer.
I think I am not the right person to edit the page itself, though.
Han-Wen (LilyPond Author).
and also
I don't own licenses to either Finale or Sibelius, so I can't
provide you with any specific samples, but I've seen both in
action. I think that pointing out weaknesses of other
packages should not be done on the LilyPond page, but rather
on the pages of said packages. I think it's better to point
out what sets apart Lily, as this is more informative and
more objective, eg
* optical scaling for font: depending on staff size, the
design of the font is altered slightly. (This is a
Feature that Knuth's Comupter Modern font is well known
for too): note heads become rounder, and lines heavier.
* Optical spacing (see the essay), where stem directions
are taken into account for spacing subsequent
notes. Note that this is something different from the
inaccurately named Optical (tm) Spacing feature of
Sibelius.
* Proportional spacing, where allotted space is exactly
equal to durations. No other packages support this out
of the box. (you need a recent 2.7 lily, though)
* Ledger lines that never collide, but are shortened in tight
situations.
* Stem directions on the center follow the directions of surrounding
notes. (recent 2.7)
Also, in general, LilyPond does much better on automatically
avoiding collisions for ties, slurs, articulation marks,
nested tuplets, etc.. For example, if you add an arpeggio to
a chord in Finale, Finale just parks it on top of the
accidentals, you have to manually tweak things to look ok.
Han-Wen
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
AvatarĀ®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl | http://lilypond.org
- wikipedia...,
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <=
- Re: wikipedia..., Francisco Vila, 2009/06/04
- Re: wikipedia..., Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/06/04
- Re: wikipedia..., Francisco Vila, 2009/06/04
- Re: wikipedia..., Valentin Villenave, 2009/06/05
- Re: wikipedia..., Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/06/05
- Re: wikipedia..., Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/06/05
- Re: wikipedia..., Francisco Vila, 2009/06/05
- Re: wikipedia..., Jonathan Kulp, 2009/06/05