one thing i have often wondered is why sketch is not just imported into the gimp libraries. it already uses vectors and paths. why bother with building these things at home? especially if they are already written and working elsewhere?

carol

On 2003-04-16 at 1306.19 -0500, Michael J. Hammel typed this:

On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 12:56, Carol Spears wrote:

one thing i have often wondered is why sketch is not just imported into the gimp libraries. it already uses vectors and paths. why bother with building these things at home? especially if they are already written and working elsewhere?

One reason might be because the Sketch code is based on Python methods that handle the vector processing for it. The GTK+ UI is based on the Python GTK+ bindings, I believe. It's not C code, so importing it into the GIMP source would not be trivial. At least that's my take on it, though I might be wrong on how hard it would be to import those methods.

does this just mean that it needs a gtk interface to it?

carol

On 2003-04-16 at 2044.42 +0200, Simon Budig typed this:

[Cc'ing to Bernhard Herzog, Sketch Maintainer]

Carol Spears (cspears@cablespeed.com) wrote:

one thing i have often wondered is why sketch is not just imported into the gimp libraries. it already uses vectors and paths. why bother with building these things at home? especially if they are already written and working elsewhere?

One of the main reasons already has been mentioned. Sketch is mainly implemented in Python and it is nontrivial to embed this into a C-application. When doing this we would introduce a hard dependency on python which is a point that is very unfortunate.

I use sketch for a lot of stuff and like it a lot. I did discuss the opportunities for joining the efforts quite some time ago with Bernhard Herzog (was it Linuxtag 2000?) but IIRC we came to the conclusion that the different architectures are not easy to overcome.

i like sketch. i actually exchanged email with the author, very early in my internet life. i told him it would snow where he lived and it did. he said he would send me ginger cookies for that. i had read the information off a hotel web page, so i think that receiving cookies for such a thing was uncalled for. but it was interesting email, none the less.

Another thing that I have not yet figured out is: Where does the Scope of GIMP stop, where should it leave room for other programs? Clearly there are areas where Gimp could learn from a vector based program and vice versa. But should Gimp try to become "the" tool for vector based stuff? I don't know and it depends on my mood if I am opposed or in favour of this option. But looking at the current state of the Gimp I doubt that there are the resources available to head for e.g. full SVG compliance.

see, this is where i screwed up. i think it is silly to import a whole bunch of new software when everything you need is right at home. at least consider some of the existing options before you import a whole new way of doing things. there is a lot available right here in the gimp dot org stuff. it deserves at least a look at.

there are so many things i don't understand. this attempt is just another example of a dialog i didn't mean to start.

Currently my main focus in Gimp development is: Replace the path tool with a not sucking version and keep the implementation open for further improvements. In the post 1.4 era it might be interesting to head for vector-layers, but this needs time. Beyond this I don't have any plans.

i love what i saw you working on. i am sorry to distract you from this very good work with silly questions and persoanl issues.

carol