Re: frescobaldi vs. org-babel-lilypond

[Steven Arntson]

James Harkins <address@hidden> writes:

> Steven Arntson <steven <at> stevenarntson.com> writes:
>
>> I may be getting in over my head with this question. I'm a new user of
> Lilypond,
>> transitioning away from Musescore. I've
>> been using Frescobaldi a bit, and am impressed with it so far.
>> 
>> However, I see there's an Emacs mode available through org-babel called
>> "Arrange Mode". I'm a user of Emacs (though far from an expert!), and I
>> love the environment.
>> 
>> Does anyone have familiarity with both, who could highlight a few of the
>> differences? Frescobaldi has many features I doubt I'll use much (such
>> as the Quick Insert menu). Mainly what I like about it is the
>> integration of the windows--text entry, music display, lilypond
>> messages, and MIDI playback. I wonder if that could be done with a
>> dedicated Emacs instance.
>
> I would cast my vote for Frescobaldi, actually.
>
> I went through a phase of trying to do everything in Emacs -- org-mode,
> e-mail (Wanderlust), LilyPond-mode, sclang-mode for SuperCollider. Now
> I use
> Emacs only for org-mode -- and by itself, that's a good enough reason to
> keep Emacs around. (I'm not kidding -- it's the best organizer/authoring
> tool I've ever seen.)
>
> For me, the thing that seals the deal in favor of Frescobaldi is its
> syntax-aware autocompletion. It's pretty good at hiding completion options
> that are not appropriate in that location -- good enough that, if I
> expect a
> completion menu and one doesn't appear, that's often a red flag to recheck
> the syntax.
>
> LilyPond-mode may have grown since I stopped using it, but at the
> time, its
> completion tables left out a lot of valuable keywords, and it provides
> basically no on-the-fly assistance with syntax.
>
> Plus, the integrated PDF viewer with point-and-click to jump to the bit of
> code responsible for a glyph, and which also highlights the glyph coming
> from the text cursor's location, saves HOURS of navigation time. Really,
> seriously.
>
> My opinion is that Emacs-purity isn't worth losing the conveniences of
> Frescobaldi.
>
> hjh

That's exactly the sort of thing I've been wondering about. Clicking on
the noteheads to see the same spot in the txt file has been a big
benefit for me already, and I can tell my productivity would suffer for
losing it. Much as I miss the emacs keybindings (and am always opening a
print dialog when I try to move the cursor down a line) there seem to be
many advantages to sticking with Frescobaldi.