On 6/24/05, Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Michael Schumacher wrote:
> > Great work! Seems like we will finally have pygimp 2.4 for GIMP 2.4 on each
> > of the officially supported platforms. Hm, how about letting
> > Script-Fu/Tiny-Fu die in favor of it? ;)
> The best thing about Script-Fu has been knowing it would be available and
> included in the 'default install'.  Many existing scripts are written in
> Script-Fu and as you know we still regularly get users asking how to get
> and old script to work with the current version.
> >From a technical standpoint it is great that Python and Perl subsystems
> are well achitectured and entirely seperable but the failure of
> distributors to include them in the 'default install' or even bother to
> build them has dicouraged people from using them.  Making it possible to
> leave things out is different from it being a good idea to leave things
> out and I do not think users are given the best impression of the GIMP
> because to the ordinary user if it is not installed it may as well not
> exists.
> My point is Script-Fu remains useful despite it's flaws and I am concerned
> by the potential side-effects of killing it off.

Agreed!  There is great value in having a scripting interface that is
guaranteed to be present in any gimp installation.  Regardless of how
hard we implore, people are quite simply not going to universally
include script-fu in their gimp packages if we package it separately
ourselves.  That is human nature.  While I think it would be great to
replace script-fu with tiny-fu, it would be a big mistake to ship a
gimp tarball that doesn't include either.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to