On Sunday 07 September 2008 20:17:30 Bob van der Poel wrote: > ClamAV 0.94 > > Atte André Jensen wrote: > > Bob van der Poel wrote: > > <snip> > > > >> ...when I have serious (or fun) work to do I write my score with MUP. > > > > Could you elaborate abit about why you choose mup over lilypond? > > I'll probably get flamed by the lilypond guys ... but: > > I did spend some time with a number of products in 2004 and wrote this > review: > > http://mellowood.ca/mup/mup-review.html > > I know things have changed since then. But, I figure that so long as > something works I'll continue to use it :) > > Biggest concerns for me: > > - I find the syntax of mup much easier. I am quick to point out that > this might just be a case of "what one knows". MUP is certainly less > verbose. > > - mup handles transposition very well. I'm not sure if lily does now > (it didn't last time I checked). > Mup does not look bad at all, aside from not being opensource. But it certainly will not break the bank and does produce nice output if it gets decent input. You, computers ... A while back, someone was working a a minimalist scoring program, gcomposer I think he called it. His syntax was very close to MUPs idea. He was not interested in a full repertoire of music symbols, however. But a GUI for MUP in the making. it certainly could be. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
