Hi, I also have a usability question. I'm using lilypond-2.10.11 (linux executable) on intel centrino 1.4MHz with 256MB of RAM, and I cannot render 10 page chamber piece of music due to lack of memory. after 15 min I stop "Layout outputting to 'xxx.ps'" and I found outputted 4 pages of 10. If I turn swap off, I'm given "Out of memory error".
Last year I prepared 30-page orchestral score and I was forced to cut it into 4 parts and process them separately (lily-2.7.35). I remember I left lilypond rendering this piece for one night. It didn't help. I won't mention some memory segm. faults which disappeared when eg. I changed one tuplet to regular eighths (I had to change the piece, fortunately -- my own). So my question is if I have to buy new hardware to be able to use my preferred software? Or whether it would help if I compiled lily myself? Would I be indecently curious if I ask you about your experiences with large lilypond projects (if 10-page piece can be regarded as "large") and your hardware? In this point I want to defend Upro, who started this thread. This man wants to typeset some bigger thing, but he doesn't want to fail due to technical problems. And probably these masterpieces of Leipzig Cantor will be typeset with Sibelius. I agree that typing lilypond code in is much faster than doing so with (eg.) Sibelius, I agree that result of raw processing with lilypond is much better. One must be very naive to believe that everything can be coded as program/algorithm. But when it comes to fine tuning the score it becomes real pain. Most things are done with trial&error method, which consumes (depending on score of course) lots of time. With mouse it takes seconds to drag'n'drop such elements. What about hard to achieve marks as double-glissando on violin? To complain more: convert-ly simply doesn't work for me. So all my old projects have to be rewritten line by line. Of course some dirty hacks (someone before mention them?) have to be changed usually to some other ones (like controlled aleatorism notation, modifying stencils with scheme). There was pointed somewhere analogy to TeX/LaTeX. But I can process latex files from eighties of last century, but cannot my last year lilypond work. In my case this would be very optimistic variant. That is my choice to use Lilypond. I agee with limitations. I very often supplement printed scores with black pen (mentioned above double-glissandoes, lastly harp part -- all this graphical stuff). But I don't want to be limited to 5-page scores. Upro, and I, and anyone who professionally deal with music, esp. making visual representation of her, in a long run needs reliable environment. But to stop this nonconstructive criticism I must admit I found LP very handy and useful when I was making short excerpts of larger pieces for embedding in book (theory of music, 400p.). Using Finale/Sibelius/who-knows-what-else I had would kill my self. Certainly. best, ak Ps.sorry for my english -- as I've never been in UK/USA I know it only theoretically. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
