An object-oriented design with heavy use of inheritance, virtual function calls etc. Of course there's a cost -- larger memory usage, slower running speed. If you are saying that design complexity cannot possibly be caused by the language then I strongly disagree. The absence of essential organizational constructs in C is a breeding ground for complexity. Look at Xlib for example, you have to match up discriminated unions properly by hand, which involves keeping track of struct names, typedefs and union field names, all spelled differently and sometimes inconsistently.
The resulting code is unnecessarily hard to write, harder to read at least if "understanding" is a required part of reading and full of accidents waiting to happen. I do not see how that can fail to translate into design complexity. You just can't cover up those flaws with a design, the underlying mechanism insists on showing through. But if you are designing as you go then its likely to all turn to shit a few times anyway, the efficiency loss of the language probably isnt significant compared to lost time due to re-writing whole sections of code.
That is the waterfall method. I do not find it as effective or efficient as the iteration method. Kernel style is one variable declaration per line. The declarations are separated from the code by a blank line. C99 allows people to mix code and variable declarations, but in the kernel it's considered horribly bad style. The kernel style is to use kernel-doc comments and so C99 comments are considered non-standard and thus wrong.
And the kernel often takes advantage of the latest features in GCC where possible. For example, v2. When you say that we've banned C99 code that makes it sound like we're retarded. There are tons of things that we hate but only because they are ugly and not because they are new. It does sound like that, doesn't it? User: Password:. It may be debatable for low level projects like the kernel; there were probably no good alternatives around in But for an application like the Gimp, C is about as bad as it gets.
Yes, they did it wrong. They even started with motif And it's not fixable, but I am convinced that it's a problem for interested newcomers to have to write in C within the constraints of the gobject system. Python is slow and uses more memory. If these aren't problems for you - great, use Python. Caveat: it is naive to assume that a lot of care and attention goes into ensuring accurate search stats in a search engine.
In version 2. Is there another way to archiv Create an amazing electricity effect on any object! GreenElephant about 1 month ago. Gives me a different focus on how to tackle a problem I have with fluffy animals. Masking hair with fine strands. Show forums Latest discussions cookdaniel 1 day ago. Tool tips don't work ver 2. VirginiaTStewart 2 days ago. RobertPickett 3 days ago. Can you do cash advance online? Can you get a loan online? I don't think Gimp will die, but I'm guessing that, at least for hobbyists, it'll probably be dethroned by whichever web-based solution gets to the head of the pack.
This is valuable feedback from an artist who actually bothered to try to use the software. Ultimately, for a highly-paid artist, learning a new interface is itself costly. I don't quite understand the downvotes, anyone care to comment? I just meant that time is a valuable commodity which artists can rarely afford, unless they have a really good reason to. I applaud this reviewer for having the time.
I don't think his main problem is with the interface. I think you're illustrating the point of the author: such an option should be the default. The user shouldn't have to go looking for it. GEGL is not fully baked yet, using it reduces stability and the operations you can perform. There are several good alternatives to GIMP depending on what you're doing.
GIMP is probably the best for traditional photo editing, but there seems to be more programs oriented toward illustration. In particular, I like Krita. I don't really know what the deal is with the low development interest in GIMP. I think maybe it's that Photoshop's professional niche generally isn't comprised of big fan of computers in the first place, so they are more like the Office crowd and just want to use what they're used to; they're hostile to any change from the start.
I also think that the extremely long development cycle of GEGL, which was necessary for the most commonly requested features like increased bit depth, CMYK, etc. I'm merely guessing here, though. I definitely agree that GIMP has a lot of potential, and a few dedicated developers could really take it places.
I think maybe it's that Photoshop's professional niche I don't know about the developers and why more people aren't interested in helping out though I suspect for a lot of people its a mixture of the difficulties of getting established in a large codebase and the beurocracy involved in a large project , but from a user point-of-view I think GIMP has a few problems. I've used GIMP exclusively for many years but I'm not a graphic designer, so my use of image editing software was never terribly heavy and I used photoshop for the first time last summer.
My transition to photoshop was a very pleasant one as, IMHO, photoshop has a much simpler and more productive interface buttons are easy to access, convenient keyboard shortcuts, interface is not too cluttered ; it has a larger range of more advanced, generally filters and tools; and it seems a lot faster to me too definitely when applying filters to a large image.
This can be, in my experience, quite slow in GIMP, but in photoshop most filters are almost instantaneus for me. I can only assume that many other people feel the same and I imagine this may make it less desirable for people to work on GIMP, especially if there is perceived resistance from the GIMP developer community for GIMP to move in the direction that newcomers feel it should eg, does GIMP still have that horrible multi-window interface?
Most people dislike it though since I started using a tiling window manager on windows it actually becomes much more usable! Having said all that, from a user point of view, unless you make a reaosnable amount of money with your photo-editing, it is still hard to justify photoshops high price tag. GIMP being free is definitely a big plus point for it for casual use. Only two core devs left? A long history of neglect and moving in the wrong direction?
I can bet if, say, Pixelmator went OSS right now, there'd be a sea of devs fighting to add features to it. Most devs don't want to walk into a major, legacy project just to pick up the pieces, most of us would rather join something that has a solid base where the maintainers have a decent idea of what the product needs. Having only 2 principal developers left which have little time sounds to me like the biggest problem. That's not enough manpower to compete with Photoshop in the long run.
One reason for that might be that Gimp already does the stuff most coders need from an image manipulation tool, so maybe there's not enough itches to scratch left to get more talent interested in developing for it. To everyone who is replying to the 8bit issue by mentioning GEGL - Have you actually used it in a professional capacity?
The performance issues the article mentions are with reasonable sized images at only 8 bits, but editing a 16bit, 25MP image wasn't just slow, it was unusable. Photoshop however, runs in near real time at these image sizes. Even automating a GEGL filter to run on a series of a few hundred images would take long enough that I couldn't maintain a usable workflow. Surely the underlying problem is that GIMP is and has been underfunded for years.
Firefox is able to develop quickly due to the deal with Google, maybe GIMP needs something like that, e. This article brings my experience with OSS full circle.
At the time it was tempting to believe that OSS was inherently a better development model but after almost fifteen years it's clear that it's been wildly successful in some domains but a washout in others. Another missing feature for me is lack of a CYMK color palette. Vital for sending images to the printers. There's a plugin for that, not perfect but does the job. The fact that you need to download a plugin for something as essential as that is a big drawback.
Not entirely, I get away with it as the publications ultimately use low quality reproduction and so they don't match anyway. It's certainly better but the main issue for me sending RGB is brightness and I've learnt to adjust for it. The consumer doesn't know what it's supposed to look like colour-wise, they're probably reading in non-optimal conditions, possibly colour-blind. I don't know much about photo editing, but I've used Gimp for a little while along with Inkscape for editing.
I use it for simple stuff- drop shadows, minor logo work, etc. Is there a noticeable difference vs. Not really. But students, people starting out, small-time freelancers, and even some random home users editing their Christmas photos just pirate Photoshop.
Although, Paint. NET is gaining some market share in the home-user category. ZenzerNet on Jan 11, root parent next [—]. CrLf on Jan 11, root parent next [—]. In my opinion there is. In Photoshop you can attach dropshadows layer styles to layers. This will save you a lot of time when something changes. I used Photoshop and Gimp. I can create the same images in Gimp but it just takes a lot more time. For hobby that's ok, but for work it's not.
Thats why people are willing to pay a lot for Photoshop. One thing that is bothering me in Gimp is that there is a layer size. Seems like a minor thing. But these are the little things that get in the way of working quick. I think that for small stuff like that the difference won't be very noticeable,especially to the end user. If you get some designers to really look at it they might notice a difference, but I wouldn't want to pay for a Photoshop license for minor stuff like that.
I believe they have the same target market—people who are "adding drop shadows, doing minor logo work, etc. Purely feature wise they might might be comparable, but features isn't where PSE's strength lies. Photoshop Elements has done a lot of UI work to make common tasks really easy. Someone who has never done any photo editing before can probably sit down with PSE and quickly get pretty great results without any major problems. The same can definitely not be said about The Gimp.
Yes, the noticeable difference is Gimp sucks!! Hats off to the Gimp development team for pulling off so many features and above all having an open-source product out there. But the problem is PhotoShop has set the expectations way too high. And I'm afraid, a non-commercial product will never be able reach that level. Are there any arguments why a non-commercial product not necessarily Gimp will never be able to reach "that level"?
This looks suspiciously like "open source software is always worse than closed source!!!!! I don't think anyone doubts that for things like OS kernels, database engines, web frameworks, browsers, libraries, editors etc.
FOSS software easily wins. But for end-user applications where you pay for the competition and where the typical end-users are not developers, or similar, e. Have you ever tried MyPaint? IMO a good example of a software which does its tasks very well I'm no digital painter, but I've heard about graphic artists seriously thinking about switching to it I agree Photoshop sets the expectations high.
But I don't agree that a non-commercial product cannot reach that level. Take a look at Blender. That's probably not the best example, as Blender was initially closed-source until the creators went bankrupt. For anyone serious about image production the cost of the software, like the cost of the camera and lenses is insignificant. For most photographers bit depth is only something they give much thought to when a client dictates like a stock agency requiring a 16bit tiff, for example.
For the vast majority of people just making images, 8 bit depth is perfectly fine. Most sensors in digital cameras are not anywhere near 16 bit anyway, more likely 12 or sometimes Obviously that will degrade an image. Nobody, I suspect, is willing to show a side by side comparison of an image showing ordinary editing with rounding errors that make the slightest different to the image.
Most output is computer screens anyway where there is so much more impacting the image than rounding errors in editing stage. When you print an image that also introduces its own set of transforms, some have the benefit of making much that is visible on the screen like moderate chroma noise largely go away.
I dislike GIMP because it lacks the polish and sophistication of Photoshop but good photographs are good photographs, regardless of rounding errors in adjustment layers. When you look back at the last century of images, how many of those photos do you say would be improved had they more resolution, or less banding or whatever technical nonsense metric you want to apply.
NIL8 on Jan 11, prev next [—]. What shocks me is the lack of competition in this field in the year
0コメント