On 9/27/07, Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to > > incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken > > nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be only temporary -- > > the ultimate necessity to have a separate library would still exist -- > > and would only apply to the GIMP project. > > Yikes, you had a good argument until this bit... > Yes, what you say is true, but with 16-bit color, all of those professional > graphics houses would have been eyeing Gimp for the last 6 years, instead of > shunning it. They don't care about what code is maintainable. From an > engineering standpoint, doing what the devels did was "right", but holding it > up as the only choice that could have benefitted people is not accurate.
'best approach' does not imply that, and I see no other part you could be referring to here. Of course CinePaint (the hack/fork of Gimp 1.04 to support high bitdepth and alt colorspaces) filled a need -- and the people who are commercially using that are rather likely to switch to GIMP when GIMP supports those things, as CinePaint then changes in perception from being a superpowered cripple next to GIMP, to just being a cripple. I believe this demonstrates both the good points and problems of the quick-hack approach. _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
