![]() ![]() ![]() All of the glyphs, all of the formatting, and all of the parameters have been carefully crafted by people who care about readability. ![]() Why is this a good thing, besides the fact that you don't have to shell out hundreds of dollars? This means that LilyPond is written by people who care about music and how it looks on the page. This means that anyone can contribute to the software by adding features, debugging code, etc. LilyPond isn't just freeware, either-it's free/open source as well. The first main advantage of LilyPond that I listed was that it is free. On the other hand, like LaTeX, LilyPond's plain-text language allows whoever is using it to override absolutely any default setting to achieve their own formatting. Therefore, LilyPond's plain-text nature is actually an advantage, as it allows the composer or arranger to focus on content, and let LilyPond handle proper formatting. However, LilyPond is also based on the same philosophy as typesetters such as LaTeX (which also use plain-text documents): let the author worry about content instead of formatting and let the typesetter worry about formatting instead of content. That is, LilyPond's project files are written in a plain-text language similar to the programming language Scheme (much of LilyPond's backend was written with Scheme). I advocate it for two main reasons:Īnyone who is already used to using Finale or Sibelius, however, may find it difficult to grasp that LilyPond is text-based. Some may have noticed that I advocate the use of LilyPond for typesetting scores instead of Finale or Sibelius. ![]()
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |