pcg@xxxxxxxx ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:06:58PM +0100, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't think we should do that simply because I don't see what is so important about having a self-contained scripting language. I'd rather like to see three or four well-maintained and working scripting languages that can be installed separately. If we can make sure that the language extensions work and can be easily installed that should be good enough then.
I think this is already reality, as most people will get gimp from a gnu/linux distribution and many if not most of them will ship these extensions as seperate packages already.
Actually, most GIMP users probably get their GIMP from Jernej - OK - the GNU/Linux side of things gives us a nice big install base on Linux, but proportionately very few Linux people actually *use* the GIMP. I'd guess that the majority of our power users are on Win32.
(and the rest should easily be prepared to deal with installing things from source).
This is the big developer fallacy... installing from source is not easy, particularly if you have a desktop set-up and not a developer's set-up. If you have to install a C compiler, you probably won't bother.
To me it's all a matter of the installer.
Agreed. The installer should, IMHO, install almost everything (within reason). It makes more sense to have separate packages for stuff on Linux (that's the Linux way) but on Windows, people expect to be able to install 1 thing.
Simons agruments, however, smell a lot of "standard gimp extension language", because his goal is to have one language that is always pat of gimp, which would effectively be a standard. I don't think that's a bad idea at all, especially when we later think of macro recording and other tasks, where we _will_ need some standardized macro language that should be easy to translate into real scripts.
Agreed. So - who's been thinking about the macro recorder? :)
Cheers, Dave.
-- Dave Neary bolsh@xxxxxxxx
