I always talk about stuff from my programmer-colored glasses. I say there isn't a lot of value in the fxtree code, or older compositing/paint code in general, because today anyone can download an image library, openimageio, and write you own fxtree-like compositor within a few days. I think the Intel libraries might have you covered with all the threading and graph evaluation. Want to write a paint app. you can look at the gimp source code, use the Cairo library for vector graphics, etc. I tool the image lib from illusion, then wrote my own operator evaluation code, if I can do it it's not complicated. But I think there are open source libs for that too.
Now doing correct floating point compositing, multi-channel workflows, tile based/memory management handling, that's a whole other ballgame. Then you go in 3d space, it's yet another ballgame. Nuke is another ballgame. The basics are always easy, and eventually the bar moves up and those basics become commoditized, which is the word I guess I should have used rather than "worthless". That's why there are so many text editors these days, while it was a programming feat to make a text editor in the early days but today it's a well known problem. On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Matt Lind <[email protected]> wrote: > In your opinion, what would've needed to happen with the FXTree to make it a > 'real contender'. > > Matt > >
