On Monday, 9 November 1998, Nick Bailey writes:
> jeff covey wrote:
>
> > dear mr. van der poel,
> >
> > not only does lilypond use an input syntax similar to that of mup
> > (though lilypond's music definition language is easier to read and
> > write) and create far superior output, but it's also free in both
> > senses of the word. i can't understand why you would promote a
> > shareware program in a gnu/linux magazine while totally ignoring a
> > superior gpl program that's an official part of the gnu project.
> >
>
> Sorry, but while I agree with the other sentiments, from the output I've seen
+ mup
> is /far better/ than lilypond. Just look at the bach 48 example, and there a
+ re
> loads of silly collisions, slurs overwriting dynamic markings, and strange
Well i'm surely not going to argue that Lily has no bugs, or even that
Lily is lacking trivial features that most other notation programs have
(could you put an url to your 'examples', that talks a bit easier).
But hearing that someone finds another programs output //that much// better
than Lily's made me curious!
So today i took a look again at Mup http://www.Arkkra.com/, and converted
one of MUPs samples (sic.) to mudela.
> Looking forward to being proved wrong 8-)
Judgement of what is 'fine output' will always be rather subjective;
there's no right or wrong here, so you may best see for yourself:
PostScript output of MUP and Lily:
http://www.Arkkra.com/doc/star.ps
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/lilypond/input/test/out-www/stars-and-stripes.ps.gz
The input:
http://www.Arkkra.com/doc/star.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/lilypond/input/test/out-www/stars-and-stripes.txt
Greetings,
Jan.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/lilypond
