Are you trying to claim you can't use XML-based scripts in Adobe Illustrator? Regarding plugins, it sounds like you're falling back on the whole "open source" excuse with repeating the "Open API" deal. Illustrator has allowed plugins since the early 1990's a full decade before Inkscape's initial release in 2003. As best as I can tell no other drawing program has more plugins available to it than Illustrator, both commercial and free.
Regarding things that get lost when exporting from one application to another, such as XML markup, that's a fact of life when importing files from one application into a rival application's non-native environment.
None of that stuff you listed with Inkscape is "innovative" in any kind of recent events perspective.
XML Script is not the same as XML-Script (and there is even a slight difference in their name as well, but they are 2 different technologies).
And you did exactly what I thought you would do, which is why I didn't mention them in the first place.
It's not about the sheer amount. It is about "efficiently and accurately" getting in house (key in house) tools to improve my competitive advantage. That doesn't mean writing my own graphics programs, but extending. Main reason why Affinity Designer doesn't appeal to me. Last I checked within a forum post, is that there wasn't a plugin system available and there were no plans for one at that time, but if I recall correctly, it was an old post, so it's been awhile. At that point, I don't care if it's me writing it or someone else, not having a plugin system period can be a concerning aspect as I rarely used stock programs (be it Ai, DRAW or Inkscape) when it came to graphics.
As to import/exporting general concerns. What you said is true in one respect. When it comes to opening another proprietary format in a program for which it wasn't designed for, yes, that is an expected behaviour. SVG files though are actually a W3C standard, so it is quite open. I wouldn't think it would be beyond the realm of possibility that front end graphics people would use Ai/DRAW/Inkscape to create graphics for the web and I would imagine that there are sign people that do web work as well. I find it ironic though, that the XML info is maintained when opened in a text editor (which is very much not a graphics program), but it is lost in other graphic programs. Now, don't think I expect them to be able to use this information, Inkscape doesn't use that extra info directly, it just ignores it, that's the behavior I'm expecting ignoring. That should be far easier of a behavior instead of only sticking adhering to the most basic markup. It would be good though to have an editor like Inkscape has that makes a very easy GUI way of adding in classes, ids to target specific vector objects for front end work, but they don't do that. That's a nice feature, does it apply to you and your use case, I highly doubt it unless you also do front end work, which I doubt. Although I'm sure that there are sign people that do.
Now, one might argue that Flash/Animate might be a better choice in this instance, yes and no. Their is more support for HTML5 needs, but it's still more focused on video/animation/games then still pictures.
EDIT to ADD: Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure when exporting to EPUB (another W3C standard) in InDesign, Adobe generates the HTML differently as well. It works still, but it's different (standards versus common practice type of thing in this case).
By different, I mean they are doing their own thing. I may have to take Publisher for a trial and see how they do it see how/if they do it.
You just love repeating yourself don't you, all while repeatedly ignoring the points I've made about CorelDRAW. It's time to stop beating the dead horse. I took a break from this forum for while. Now I am sorry I bothered to come back. This bull$#!+ is just wasting my time.
I have to repeat myself, because things are either missed or taken out of context. If I recall correctly, you said that you don't have the time to read everything that is posted (which is absolutely fine, we all do it to a degree, but it does come with certain downsides as well).
I don't like repeating myself at all.
Oh, baloney. You sound like you are not happy with letting anyone else make their own choice, that you want me or anyone else stupid enough to waste time on this same "discussion" to use the same OS and other tools you use. I or anyone else is "wrong" otherwise. That's regardless of the fact your own specific work flow does NOT apply to everyone else. When I mention how it is very critical for my workplace to use Adobe's tools you blow that off. But I've repeated this point numerous times already. You just won't listen and leave it alone.
Not at all. What I do have a concern about is when people's information isn't quite accurate (either due to being wrong totally or having outdated info) and then pass their judgement based on that. In a lot of ways, I had some of the same notions as well.
It may still not work and that's fine, but to eliminate options due to information that is wrong or outdated, that's a concern in my mind. If it still doesn't work out for you, it still doesn't work out for you.
That sounds like an excuse to not even try. Plenty of other developers are making plugins for Illustrator, even free ones.
Partially, but it also prevents efficient workflow. I can understand a public project having those caveats as it does depend, a lot of the time, for volunteers to come up with the documentation, but that's not the case with Adobe.
The only free plugin that I have experience with in Ai is the CutStudio plugin which is simply (using all the features, at least all of the features that it had when I was using it) adding reg marks (3 of them), exporting an EPS file version and automatically opening that said file in their own program. None of which goes into access to the programs file menu or even using the program's own guide menu system, something like I do have within Inkscape. MirrorMe (atleast my version) uses their own guide system as well. So that tells me, that there system may not easily have access to the program's APIs, certainly at the level that I would be, compared to where I can get with other programs.
I wasn't talking about decade old gear with recent top of the line upgrades. You can't even do that with most old notebooks. An 8GB to 16B RAM upgrade might be about as good as it gets for a lot models (even some newer notebooks). An old magnetic drive might be able to be swapped out with a SATA-based SSD. God forbid you try with a Mac; the RAM is soldered in and next to nothing is user-serviceable. Anyway, the point is if Illustrator was such a resource hog it would require much newer and higher end hardware to run effectively at all.
I wasn't either, not directly.
Keep in mind as well, most companies consider a dev to be more productive, the more code they write, not necessarily in the most efficient way. So I would be willing to bet that if they open sourced CC (I'm not saying they will), that there would be some major refactoring going on. Now, since it's closed source, I'm speculating, but I'm willing to play those odds. That's not a knock on devs at all, I understand the motivation behind what they do, but nevertheless, it is still something to be aware of and consider that does affect bloat.
This isn't getting into telemetry aspects of the software as well (as that does eat up resources not directly related to end user usage). Regardless if you care or not about telemetry, that is still eating up resources that aren't directly related to end user usage.
Although, I will say this, I don't bother with laptops with regard to work (I did once), so that I really won't be able to comment on. I understand the reasoning for that market, I'm just not that market. There is at least one that does allow for quite a bit of customization (if their ads are kosher) and that also includes the ability to swap out ports as well.
Depends on a few things if their business is really up and up on right to repair as their ad claims, but who knows. I think their first run ships this summer, I think. I did do a post on it.
As to Mac, I don't even bother. They have their place and if people like them, that's fine.
Considering that it appears that some of these OEMs are even involved in striking down right to repair as it relates to vehicles and farm equipment, I would speculate that they are trying to make everything non user serviceable.
Which is something that I really, really don't like. Why I like to get parts that are user serviceable. Even the little stuff (as in paraphials, the $ wasn't little compared to others). My favorite is the ErgoDox. Not cheap, but everything is user serviceable and even the firmware is able to be user tweaked (nice thing is that, because the board is what is flashed, I can move it to any platform and everything works exactly the same). I was a big logitech fan before that and still use some of their stuff, but I do prefer this keyboard.
In my own case, being able to get work done efficiently and accurately is a bigger concern than the "rights" I have with a piece of commercial software. The advertising industry is very steeped in Adobe's software. Of course, this is another point I've repeated multiple times already. That's one of the key differences between Adobe and Corel. Big "evil" Adobe has a lot of leverage. Corel doesn't have nearly as much.
Corel on the other hand, has Ai's leverage in the apparel industry, mainly due to what I mentioned before with Wilcom, but they also had that way with own programs as well. DRAWings for instance, enjoyed a partnership, their UI (at least the last version that I used of it) looks dead ringer for DRAWs. Again, I much prefer Ai to DRAW, but that is the case in the apparel industry.
Efficiently and accurate also comes with experience in a program. Some features that people may not think exists in the other program, actually do, but the workflow is very different to them That's not in every case, but it's happened enough times that I think is worth mentioning. I used to get in a discussion with OldPaint about Macros and Actions. He was a Corel guy thru and thru and appeared to despise Ai (and his last version was 7 with Ai, so if You think that I am outdated with my info, I wonder what you would think about OldPaint in that regard) and he was unaware of Actions.
This is why I mentioned that caveat with my response to Ikarasu's post with using Ai for commercial and using Affinity for personal projects. Always a risk of going back to what you know when something is totally different (or it could be totally lacking), that safety cushion prevents that necessary mental fortitude to persevere to see how it's done in the new program versus what you are used to.
I am not saying that that is the case with you Bobby, just something that is also worth considering as well.
You're talking about throwing together (or "prototyping") a user interface. I'm talking about the creating the actual functional guts of the software, not the GUI on the surface. I'm not a software engineer, but I'm pretty sure the developers at Astute Graphics took more than just an afternoon to make one of their plugins.
No, I was giving an example of how much they abstract away from the dev by using these frameworks.
In our many conversions, you talked about how devs have to maintain separate code based for different platforms. That is only true when you write specifically for that platforms native APIs with regard to the GUI. Thus when writing a GUI totally from scratch takes longer and is only related to one platform. You also left of the part of the post that you quoted, that I was talking about just writing a CLI based program (which because it doesn't have a GUI compiles to both Windows and Linux(don't have a Mac to find out about that) without any code change, again that's an issue with having a GUI due to the fact that there is no standard GUI lib in C++ std) which would further substantiate the fact that I am not just talking about GUI prototyping. CLI programs is totally bare bones. CIN and COUT that's it. Not even a TUI. And it is all functional.
Things like this are why I repeat things.
You're splitting hairs. You can try to claim you've been staying on topic, but a casual mention of Affinity in the thread's beginning doesn't excuse all the thread derailment that has gone on constantly ever since. This stupid thread has mostly been the same very tired, very boring bull$#!+ we've gone over too many times already.
I made no such claim. My only claim was that I did in fact make a post having to do with Affinity and it was only about Affinity (contrary to your initial claim), derailment came in my subsequent posts. Not excusing at all. Just merely stating things.
Second hand knowledge isn't actual hands-on experience. I might avoid buying or using a given piece of software if I see enough people complain about their own experiences with it. But that second hand knowledge isn't going to give me the same credibility to comment on it as someone with actual hands on experience.
OK, I think I may not have made that clear.
When your are telling me about people that have had all these issues, but make no mention of the names of users, it's just some nebulous term of "users", no specific user (contrary to my mentioning Johnny) and thus just heresay without any way for me to confirm or deny if they are leaning that way with Corel. Contrary to when I talk directly about your experience and your choices, I'm getting it from the source (or first hand knowledge as you put it).
We actually agree on this point, I just don't think I was clear with this statement.
You are a former Adobe customer. The only thing you proved when posting your screen shot image is that you're a former Astute Graphics customer as well.
Not all. That would include at least one time having paid for the software (since you believe that I was a former customer). You have conflated my thinking this as a way to go cheap and not by my pound of flesh like everyone else.
Keep going, by word count you guys are close to matching the total from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Forget Tolkien, I'm going bigger.
I also say, a part of me enjoys the exchange. This is how I learn as well (for better or worse) by having my thought process challenged. I may still not agree with "you", but I do consider what is being said/written. Why I don't understand why people want an echo chamber. But then again, I'm funky that way. I was never accused of being normal (or what is considered normal).
