Post by Steve LittNobody in this thread called anything about Inkscape "bloat", nor said
that code related to what they don't use is "bloat". Go back and check
the archives. I brought up "bloat" with respect to Firefox.
*sigh* Which was your reply to Donn's comparison of firefox to
Inkscape as another example of a program that was good at a lot of
different things. Maybe it was not your intention to say Inkscape's
new features will lead to Inkscape being bloatware, but it certainly
came off that way.
Post by Steve LittPost by C RThe "bloat" is not causing the slowness. There is a lot in Inkscape
that needs refactoring, and a lot that needs refinement and
optimization.
Nobody in this thread said Inkscape is currently bloated. What I
said, although not in so many words, is that glomming on the feature
list recommended by Donn Ingle would greatly increase its complexity.
Some of Donn's stuff is right on the money, and have already been
discussed in previous emails and on IRC.
If you've got some issues with particular items, that can be
discussed. Dismissing someone's personal wishlist wholesale isn't very
helpful.
Post by Steve LittPost by C RWe do not need to be tossing out good ideas which are
asked for by our professional graphic design users that make Inkscape
more useful because some users are content to use it only for laser
cutting (as an example).
In that case, the professional graphic design users should prioritize
which good ideas are most important
They do, all the time, in fact. And most of them are written into the
roadmap somewhere.
Post by Steve LittAnd those pro graphic
designers should give us some ideas of how to implement those ideas in
a way compatible to SVG1, or else brainstorm to come up with an idea of
how to implement stuff incompatible with SVG1 within separate
executables.
Uh, no. :) SVG1 is a delivery format for simple vector graphics. SVG2
will eventually become a delivery format as well because it's no
longer developed.
That's exactly what this thread is about: some users have it in their
minds that everything must be somehow crammed into an SVG, and
viewable in browser.
Well, it's not going to happen. Inkscape will always be able to
save/export to SVG1 and SVG2 as a delivery format, and read those
formats back in for use in other projects. However, those formats
simply don't cover the complete needs of a pro-graphics construction
file. We even have mesh gradients now, which is not officially in
either spec. Guess we should abandon that too, just because some
people like Inkscape the way it is? No... no I think not. :)
Post by Steve LittPost by C RPlease (everyone) stop referring to the hard work and superior
features that are being proposed as "bloat". It's disrespectful to
the devs,
Oh HELL no. If devs hugely complexify software to the extent that it
becomes buggy, slow and incompatible, they ruined the software, and
deserve disrespect. It should be noted that nobody in this thread made
that accusation about *Inkscape* developers.
Except Inkscape IS a complex program. You're saying everything that
can not be done in SVG1 should be excluded. Everything else is
"bloat", right? Frankly, I don't know what you're trying to say at
this point. :)
Post by Steve LittI did, however, say that if Donn Ingle's long laundry list of changes
were implemented en masse, and especially without regard to the SVG
standard, it would result in complexity (a better word for bloat).
The whole point of the Donn's list was that Inkscape needs to grow
beyond using SVG as a CONSTRUCTION format. Specifically because
there's a lot more we want to do, and unfortunately the world has lost
interest in making SVGs better. Nothing done to SVG2 spec affects the
SVG1 spec, and nothing done to inkscape's construction file after svg2
is set as the last svg "standard" will affect svg2 after that. The OP
was simply saying that the functionality of inkscape should not be
limited to things only covered by SVG2, which is already the case (it
already contains awesome new features that will not make it into
SVG2). So I have no idea what you're arguing about. :)
The only real question is: Do we keep calling Inkscape's native
construction format called "SVG".
It's already confusing, because you can save a "plain SVG file" and an
"inkscape SVG" (non-standard) SVG file, and both have the extension
.svg.
Changing inkscape's construction file format to something like IVG
(Inksape Vector Graphic) would actually help protect the standard
svg(1) and svg(2) file formats from the need to include all the new
stuff that has already been added and is in the works.
For example, take mesh gradients: If we already saved in IVG format,
we wouldn't have issues with users complaining about it not showing up
in browser. That's reserved for the SVG standard (which is only a
standard if it's accepted by most web browsers). It's specifically
because SVG should remain pure that we need another format, which will
no doubt continue to be based on SVG with extended options.
So don't worry! SVG is safe. It's not going anywhere, and while we may
disagree what should be in Inkscape feature-wise, at least we can
agree that standard SVG files should remain usable in their
*standardised and agreed upon format*.
Post by Steve LittHey, I never said Inkscape is perfect. Nobody who has ever done a
gradient in Inkscape would make that statement. What I'm saying is it's
pretty darn good, so don't break it in pursuit of the "perfect".
I don't think you need to worry about that. And yes, definitely agree
about the gradient banding issues. :)
-C
Post by Steve LittPost by C RNo one is suggesting that your use case should be affected. Users who
are happy with how Inkscape is will probably notice only that
Inkscape is faster,
"Faster" isn't the usual result when a bunch of features are added.
There are limits to the wizardry of even the best programmers.
Post by C Rhas more useful node tools and layer grouping
modes, and is cleaner and easier to work with in general, affording
more screen real estate for drawing.
Sounds like you've got some work cut out for you, suggesting a
specification for node tools and layer grouping, and for Inkscape's
graphical user interface.
Post by C RLots of improvements on the way, let's not denounce them beforehand.
I'll denounce them beforehand every time someone suggests a combination
of an OLE type thing *and* video *and* multipage *and* Javascript
framework *and* XCF *and* 3D *and* Python interface *and* immitation of
Flash *and especially* dumping the SVG standard that allows me to use
Inkscape as a tool to do some pretty cool stuff. How would you like to
code all that crap? How would you like to do support on the finished
result? Yeah, me neither. It was a horrible idea, as stated.
Post by C RThat next feature you think you don't need might be the best thing
that ever happened to your work flow.
Happens all the time. But it happens only when the next feature is part
of an incremental improvement policy, carefully designed for simplicity
and encapsulation, carefully crafted, and released only when it's
ready. However, when it's quickied into the code, especially as part of
a laundry list of almost unrelated other features, the only way it
improves my work flow is if I move to a superior program after the
current one collapses under the weight of its complexity.
SteveT
Steve Litt
April 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques
of the Successful Technologist
http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user