On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:45:13AM +0200, Carl-Johan Sveningsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 2. How widely-used should script-fu still be? I recall hearing a
> discussion that SF would (should?) die in favour of perl-fu and c-plugins?
I don't. However, I would rather see a maintainer that tries to improve
script-fu. There are two major problems with script-fu:
- it's scheme. this is obviously a non-issue for many people and that should
stay so. the script-fu-interpreter is self-contained
- the implementation totally sucks:
* on my system, script-fu takes 8 MB of RAM even when never used.
* it slows down startup of gimp consderably each time
* it is very user-UNfriendly, no debugging hints, no usable error
messages etc...
Everything of this could be solved, givne a maintainer with enough energy.
Using a guile interface has IMHO the same problems as python, perl etc..
namely that it isn't small and self-contained (everything needed c omes
with the gimp!).
> knowing some SF, should this knowledge be considered old and obsolete?
I hope not!
> AFAIK, a lot of SF-plugins stopped working in some development version of
> gimp?
The gimp API has eveolved. Many functions changed (more arguments,
different arguments, less arguments). There is a small perl-script that
tries to update from script-fu-scripts from 1.0 to 1.2, but I stopped
maintaining it half a year ago because I didn't get any feedback ;)
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
