Kevin Cozens wrote:
> Replacing Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu could help push Tiny-Fu along a bit
> (ie. with translations) if it isn't fully ready yet by exposing it to
> more users but what is in the best interest of GIMP and its users? 

I'm actually quite sympathetic, but it doesn't seem to me that you've
given reasons for replacing Script-fu with Tiny-fu that to users
would justify the effort involved.  The sorts of reasons that might be
convincing would include:

1) Tiny-fu makes it possible to do things that you can't do in Script-fu.
    (Does it?  Can you give examples?)

2) Tiny-fu scripts are easier to write than Script-fu scripts.  (Are they?)

3) Tiny-fu scripts are more robust than Script-fu scripts.  (Are they?)

4) ?

In short, I think you have to sell this a bit better, because people aren't
going to be enthusiastic about doing the work of converting their scripts
unless they see some major gain that goes along with it.

  -- Bill

______________ ______________ ______________ ______________
Sent via the KillerWebMail system at

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to