On 07/08/12 00:01, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
I think you're focusing on the wrong kind of architecture.
I'm talking about the architecture of computers that people can buy in
the shops today. While cute,
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
For example, if you've got a 100-page full orchestral score, is it
really appropriate to do a global optimization of the whole thing?
Sure.
How mutually dependent, really, are the first and last pages?
Not much, usually. And
On 10/08/12 11:56, David Kastrup wrote:
Isn't it possible to break the work up into manageable smaller units
even in the case that it's 100 pages of continuous music?
Linear programming breaks up the work into manageable smaller units.
The units are not separate bunches of pages but rather
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
So what do you think about the potential of an algorithm going something like
this:
(1) Read in enough bars of music to take up a little over 2 pages [you can
presumably do a rough estimate of the width and height of
On 10/08/12 12:48, David Kastrup wrote:
I think we have enough real problems without inventing artificial
challenges.
I accept that there are bigger short-term concerns -- but my experience trying
to build the score of Valentin's opera is that being able to cap maximum memory
consumption or
Hi,
this thread has gone in (at least) 2 entirely different directions.
The original thread was about Subject as illustration of the
(dis)advantages of commercial vs. open sources software like Lilypond.
the other thread was about multithreading in lilypond processing.
Maybe it's time to
Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
That makes my copyright red flags go up. Can you check back with
Kirill and possible other authors under which conditions you are
allowed to share?
The plug-in and the postprocessor are both GPL.
We'll likely
On 7 August 2012 01:59, Neil Thornock neilthorn...@gmail.com wrote:
Sibelius was good for us. Many of my students came to music because of
software like Sibelius. A precious few came to LilyPond because of the
music.
That's a very good point. The learning curve of Lilypond is steep,
whereas
On 08/08/12 12:21, martinwguy wrote:
That's a very good point. The learning curve of Lilypond is steep,
whereas poking at note positions on a visible stave lowers the bar
immensely. In this respect Sibelius has done a great service to the
world of music by providing a working example of such a
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 08/08/12 12:21, martinwguy wrote:
That's a very good point. The learning curve of Lilypond is steep,
whereas poking at note positions on a visible stave lowers the bar
immensely. In this respect Sibelius has done a great service
On 8 August 2012 15:02, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 08/08/12 12:21, martinwguy wrote:
And if Avid is not willing to sell Sibelius back to
the original owners, for money, how much less willing are they going to be
to open source it?
Well, you know what the
Graham Percival writes:
Getting an actual LilyPond score requires calculating
line breaks and there's no way to get rid of the overhead.
Sure there is. Compile each bar individually with the default
spacing (i.e. whatever you get if your entire score is one bar and
you use
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Architecturally it is very difficult. Rather than making lilypond much
more complicated to do incremental rendering, why not invert the
problem: have your editor control line breaks, and use lilypond to
render just one line of music at a time.
This is exactly what
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org writes:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Architecturally it is very difficult. Rather than making lilypond much
more complicated to do incremental rendering, why not invert the
problem: have your editor control line breaks, and use lilypond to
render just one line
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Since the main problem in that article is to deal with the I can't read
this, even though I (probably) can write it aspect of LaTeX which is
pretty much the same problem space for LilyPond, it might be useful to
go idea-fishing.
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
It would be nice if someone from the sibelius team came out and gave
some hints about how the .sib format is structured. We could be of
help by rescuing the years of work many users have stashed away as
.sib files.
(I had a brief look at the file
Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl writes:
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
It would be nice if someone from the sibelius team came out and gave
some hints about how the .sib format is structured. We could be of
help by rescuing the years of work many users have stashed away as
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com wrote:
(I had a brief look at the file format years ago; the problem is that
they run some sort of compression scheme over their data)
What I'd do in cases like this is:
- Create a 'score' with only a middle C1 in it
- Same
- Original Message -
From: Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com
To: Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net
Cc: m...@apollinemike.com; Lilypond-User lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
It would
On 06/08/12 04:04, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
It is easy to see how these events could help lilypond long-term, but
it's also easy for any response from us to be interpreted negatively.
Let the Sibelius users have their personal moment of pain/mourning; if
they need open-source music notation,
On 06/08/12 04:10, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Architecturally it is very difficult. Rather than making lilypond much
more complicated to do incremental rendering, why not invert the
problem: have your editor control line breaks, and use lilypond to
render just one line of music at a time.
Why is
m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
On 5 août 2012, at 12:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote:
In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a quick
render output, I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't at
least 10
On 2012-08-06 04:04, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
It is worth reminding that by providing high-quality notation tools
for free, both Musescore and LilyPond have been a contributing factor
in both Sibelius' and Finale (see
http://www.makemusic.com/Pressroom/Default.aspx?pid=555) current
problems
It
It is easy to see how these events could help lilypond long-term, but
it's also easy for any response from us to be interpreted negatively.
Let the Sibelius users have their personal moment of pain/mourning; if
they need open-source music notation, they will certainly be able to
find us
George_ wrote:
WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to render
a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
threads were dedicated to running 'behind' the main threads to clean up and
knit together output?
Multithreading works well when
Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes:
George_ wrote:
WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to render
a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
threads were dedicated to running 'behind' the main threads to clean up and
knit together
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it architecturally possible to make a significant amount of
overhead go away? Are incremental compiles plausible?
Architecturally it is very
Tim Roberts wrote:
George_ wrote:
WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to
render
a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
threads were dedicated to running 'behind' the main threads to clean up
and
knit together output?
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
That makes my copyright red flags go up. Can you check back with
Kirill and possible other authors under which conditions you are
allowed to share?
The plug-in and the postprocessor are both GPL.
We'll likely also have to check the conditions for
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Christ van Willegen
cvwille...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com wrote:
(I had a brief look at the file format years ago; the problem is that
they run some sort of compression scheme over their data)
What I'd do
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:57 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes:
George_ wrote:
WRT (1): Someone in this thread suggested using individual threads to render
a bar at a time. The end result would be messy, but what if one or two
threads were dedicated to
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 07:24:06 -0600
From: Neil Thornock neilthorn...@gmail.com
To: han...@xs4all.nl
Cc: m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com,
Lilypond-User
lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
Message-ID
On 06/08/12 20:26, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Also, going MT will give you a max 8x speedup (assuming perfect
parallelization on an 8 core machine). That is not going to bring down
processing costs to interactive rates.
I think you're focusing on the wrong kind of architecture.
_This_ is the
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 06/08/12 20:26, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Also, going MT will give you a max 8x speedup (assuming perfect
parallelization on an 8 core machine). That is not going to bring down
processing costs to
It's a possible sign that music -- the type many of us are involved in
-- is losing in the greater culture war. It's not LilyPond vs
Sibelius vs Finale but rather Quality Music vs Cheap
Entertainment.
Uncompromising artistic discipline certainly has its pedagogical usefulness,
but when
Han-Wen Nienhuys-5 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 06/08/12 20:26, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Also, going MT will give you a max 8x speedup (assuming perfect
parallelization on an 8 core machine). That is not going to
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, George_ georgexu...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason this is important is because while IPC goes up incrementally and
relatively slowly (IPC has done little more than double between 2005 [P4
660] and now [i7 3930X]) and clock speed is relatively stagnant (it's
Han-Wen Nienhuys-5 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, George_ georgexu...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason this is important is because while IPC goes up incrementally
and
relatively slowly (IPC has done little more than double between 2005 [P4
660] and now [i7 3930X]) and clock speed is
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:50 AM, George_ georgexu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to explain that the constant factor (namely 8-fold) comes
at a tremendous cost. Writing multithreaded code without getting stuck
in race-conditions and deadlocks is extremely difficult and time
consuming, and
Han-Wen Nienhuys-5 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:50 AM, George_ georgexu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to explain that the constant factor (namely 8-fold) comes
at a tremendous cost. Writing multithreaded code without getting stuck
in race-conditions and deadlocks is extremely
On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote:
In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a quick
render output, I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't at
least 10 times faster than the current output.
(1) How paralellized is the current code -- and if not much or at all, what do
you
On 5 août 2012, at 12:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote:
In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a quick
render output, I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't at
least 10 times faster than the current
m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
On 5 août 2012, at 12:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote:
In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a quick
render output, I would be absolutely shocked if it
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 02/08/12 14:49, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
If you guys can get a Google Grant for your LilyPond non-profit in the
Netherlands, now would be a fantastic time to run ads on Google getting
Sibelius
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
More generally than that, I think the reason to discuss is to _discover_ the
areas where you can cooperate. There are obvious
Not so small that you cant do enough money with it. Sib and finale has
grown as sequencers and interesting enough for many midi-ists,
specially for hobbyists. I am sure a big part of the market of sib
(definitely easier than finale and with a big music-library) was not
engraving and not so
wrote:
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:24:29 -0500
From: Francois Planiol alicuota...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shuts down
To: Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com, lilypond-user@gnu.org
List-Id: LilyPond user discussion lilypond-user.gnu.org
Not so small that you cant do enough
On 2 août 2012, at 16:14, Graham Percival wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 03:02:34PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 02/08/12 14:49, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
If you guys can get a Google Grant for your LilyPond non-profit
in the Netherlands, now would be a fantastic time to run
On 2 août 2012, at 16:02, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 02/08/12 14:49, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
If you guys can get a Google Grant for your LilyPond non-profit in the
Netherlands, now would be a fantastic time to run ads on Google getting
Sibelius users to check out LilyPond. It's
On 02/08/12 15:14, Graham Percival wrote:
Well, they have the email address of our development mailing list.
... and presumably you have theirs. Why not be the ones to initiate the
discussion?
I've heard this work together more idea a few times, but I have
no clue what that would entail.
On 02/08/12 15:26, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
It may also be worth it to contact Avid. As crazy as this sounds, they may actually
appreciate LilyPond stepping in and saying Hey, we have a great piece of software
that we're proud of that will spare you a lot of headaches in terms of support
What else could we do to work together? (be it with musescore,
denemo, laborejo, elysium, etc)
- Graham
For my part: nothing. Laborejo is created for Lilypond, not just a notation
tool with an exporter. I can adapt to any Lilypond changes very fast and
Laborejo users, in the future because
On 02/08/12 16:04, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Even if no actual development overlap takes place, there are still other
potential areas of cooperation -- infrastructure, project management,
fundraising, organizing events and demonstrations -- to make it worthwhile.
Just to give some
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Nils l...@nilsgey.de wrote:
What else could we do to work together? (be it with musescore,
denemo, laborejo, elysium, etc)
- Graham
For my part: nothing. Laborejo is created for Lilypond, not just a notation
tool with an exporter. I can adapt to any Lilypond
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
More generally than that, I think the reason to discuss is to _discover_ the
areas where you can cooperate. There are obvious areas of interaction --
e.g. enabling Lilypond output for MuseScore and
On 2 août 2012, at 18:18, Lucas Gonze wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
More generally than that, I think the reason to discuss is to _discover_ the
areas where you can cooperate. There are obvious areas of interaction --
e.g.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
It is very difficult. It's better to use a front-end editor that shows some
sorta mock-up of the score and that only compiles the nice LilyPond version
from time to time (if this exists). Getting an actual
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:22:49PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On 2 août 2012, at 18:18, Lucas Gonze wrote:
Is it architecturally possible to make a significant amount of
overhead go away? Are incremental compiles plausible?
It is very difficult. It's better to use a front-end
Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
It is very difficult. It's better to use a front-end editor that
shows some sorta mock-up of the score and that only compiles the
nice LilyPond version from time to
59 matches
Mail list logo
