Re: charge of lilypond
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 23:29 -0800, Graham Percival wrote: > In particular, I had an OSC server that translated OSC > messages into lilypond code, compiled it into pngs, then displayed the > results as HTML pages. The idea is that I'd have one central computer > that would generate music (with Computer-Assisted Composition) and send > it to musicians to sight-read on stage. > Wow! That sounds like really useful work. I've been thinking about this idea for a while (real-time score generation), but never figured out how to approach it. > Since Sep, I've been tackling the problem of having the computer judge > the ability of musicians, so I haven't touched firelily (that > OSC->lily->PNG+HTML program) at all. I'm planning on rewriting it in > python (initial version was in perl) and releasing it at some point, but > my focus right now is the musician evaluation tool. > I'd be interested in contributing (some code) to this. Do you have a URL for the most recent version? Jamie ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: charge of lilypond
Johannes Schindelin wrote: On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: The best way to do this, is to write a scheme extension that reads file names from a socket or a pipe, processes those. Then you can save on the startup time of LilyPond. Didn't Graham do something like this, calling it LilyPond server? Han-Wen created the initial file (about one and a half pages of scheme code). I modified it a little bit, and then I modified it a lot to fit my needs. In particular, I had an OSC server that translated OSC messages into lilypond code, compiled it into pngs, then displayed the results as HTML pages. The idea is that I'd have one central computer that would generate music (with Computer-Assisted Composition) and send it to musicians to sight-read on stage. Since Sep, I've been tackling the problem of having the computer judge the ability of musicians, so I haven't touched firelily (that OSC->lily->PNG+HTML program) at all. I'm planning on rewriting it in python (initial version was in perl) and releasing it at some point, but my focus right now is the musician evaluation tool. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: charge of lilypond
Hi, On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > The best way to do this, is to write a scheme extension that reads file > names from a socket or a pipe, processes those. Then you can save on the > startup time of LilyPond. Didn't Graham do something like this, calling it LilyPond server? Ciao, Dscho ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: charge of lilypond
Well, in the case of LilyPond it is sure, that we can achieve better performance if all the declaration, font and everything stuff is not loaded each time. Bert ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: charge of lilypond
El sáb, 24 de feb de 2007, a las 12:07:34 +0100, Bertalan Fodor dijo: > > >I propose (at least in windows) to leave a part of the program > >resident so that invocation are less painful. > Unless it is being swapped out to the virtual memory. > > >Office and OpenOffice do > > > They are swapped out as well. And you gain nothing. Yes but finding files all over the HD and running them is not the same as retrieving pages from VM. At least don't you think that identical programs running at the same time should share their memory or something? Maybe a sort of lilypond.dll would do the trick. -- Francisco Vila Doncel. Badajoz (Spain) http://www.paconet.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: charge of lilypond
Francisco Vila escreveu: > El sáb, 24 de feb de 2007, a las 10:27:51 +0100, laurent-ducos dijo: >> We noticed by using lilypond that the invocation of lilypond is so >> greedy in resource processor. They is a little tedious for the use of >> lilypond in cgi at the time of connection multiples. Does Y have to you >> it a means of calling upon lilypond in a more sparing mode? Is the speed >> of execution of lilypond it a criterion of development? Thank you > > I propose (at least in windows) to leave a part of the program > resident so that invocation are less painful. Office and OpenOffice do > this and Lily needs this as well, I think. The best way to do this, is to write a scheme extension that reads file names from a socket or a pipe, processes those. Then you can save on the startup time of LilyPond. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: charge of lilypond
I propose (at least in windows) to leave a part of the program resident so that invocation are less painful. Unless it is being swapped out to the virtual memory. Office and OpenOffice do They are swapped out as well. And you gain nothing. Bert ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: charge of lilypond
El sáb, 24 de feb de 2007, a las 10:27:51 +0100, laurent-ducos dijo: > We noticed by using lilypond that the invocation of lilypond is so > greedy in resource processor. They is a little tedious for the use of > lilypond in cgi at the time of connection multiples. Does Y have to you > it a means of calling upon lilypond in a more sparing mode? Is the speed > of execution of lilypond it a criterion of development? Thank you I propose (at least in windows) to leave a part of the program resident so that invocation are less painful. Office and OpenOffice do this and Lily needs this as well, I think. This would speed up the work very much. Yesterday I launched two instances of LilyPond-windows and each one with its own GS engine and so on, the system went completely collapsed. -- Francisco Vila Doncel. Badajoz (Spain) http://www.paconet.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
charge of lilypond
We noticed by using lilypond that the invocation of lilypond is so greedy in resource processor. They is a little tedious for the use of lilypond in cgi at the time of connection multiples. Does Y have to you it a means of calling upon lilypond in a more sparing mode? Is the speed of execution of lilypond it a criterion of development? Thank you PS sorry my english is very bad :-( ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
