criticism is in fact very harsh ; this is not forbidden : but then, in order to be meaningful, you should be able to point to precise points ; just saying "doesn't come close to any drawing program" without giving details of what you really mean is useless : I cannot use such a very vague information to improve the software.
So as far as Xfig is concerned, I would say that, to use your own words, we come quite close to it : the current version of the graphics mode of TeXmacs contains most of the features that can be found in Xfig, and it is implemented in a much more user-friendly way.
.....
Given these facts, I think I clearly showed why, in my opinion, it is **today** that we can say that the graphics mode in TeXmacs comes close to Xfig (I discuss specifically Xfig here : of course, I do not claim that we come close to any drawing program). So my question is : why do you think that the current version of the graphics in TeXmacs would fail miserably, if one compares it to Xfig ? (be specific, please).
Money is not relevant for defining what value is. Rather, value is defined in the first place, and money is then used as a tool that allows people to invest in this or that particular value.
In other words : the fact that some software is free and some other software is not free is irrelevant : it doesn't free us from the task of explicitly saying what we want. Saying "this software, being driven this way or that way, offers real value" is not even an argument : it is politics.
On the Illustrator point I only have to add that it is rather the opposite way
to the one you put it. It is impossible for Illustrator to compete with any free
application because it is not free.
On the other hand, by stating that the feature A is missing, or that the feature B should, in your opinion, be modified this way (the said way being described in sufficient detail), you do something useful, because you bring explicit, clear and logical arguments that people can understand, reuse, and improve. If nobody ever does this, no wonder that the development of TeXmacs is driven by the developers, because without such a task of turning problems into explicit (possible) solutions, no software development is possible !
I know that Joris does put many hours into the project, and my comment wasn't on his or any other's work. What I was trying to say was that I don't think that the direction of development should be guided by the interests of the available workforce.It is not a matter of available workforce : it is a matter of writing specifications. If you want that your ideas become implemented, you must first describe them in sufficient detail, otherwise it is **impossible** to take any ideas into account, because unfortunatly, the current "available workforce" has no telepathic abilities yet.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.