On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:45:13AM +0200, Carl-Johan Sveningsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> 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                       |

Reply via email to