On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote: > On 7/18/10 3:11 PM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <janneke-l...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >>Op zondag 18-07-2010 om 13:35 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Patrick >> McCarty: >>> I think if we "roll our own" LilyPad, and borrow a lot of ideas from >>> gummi or other similar projects, we'll be on the right track. >> >> Yeah, probably maybe. I'm not too comfortable with this tex-ness, >> otoh, sharing efforts would be nice. > > I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade, and I think I might know the > answer, but ... > > Why do we want to "roll our own" when we already have LilyPondTool/Jedit, > and Frescobaldi? > > I think the answers are 1) Jedit is not very lightweight, and we want > something lightweight; and 2) Frescobaldi is specific to KDE and we want to > develop something that is cross-platform.
Yeah, the heaviness is the main problem. I think Frescobaldi is pretty lightweight, though it carries a massive dependency (KDE). Also, the JRE (or OpenJDK) for Jedit is pretty heavy. > Is it possible to separate the KDE4 stuff from Frescobaldi, and use pygtk > instead? Perhaps we could use the same core functionality. We could try porting some of the code to pygtk, though I haven't looked into it to see how difficult it would be. > It seems better to not reinvent the wheel if we can avoid it. I agree. Thanks, Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel