Around 1996~97 I had a program for writing raw plug-ins (ASCII/TXT input); but that was about twenty computers and God alone knows how many hard drives ago. I think it was in the 486-DX & Windows 3.11 sort of days.
Anyway I've long since lost that program, plus cannot for the life of me recall its name (might have been your first beta PICO.. Harald).
I was wondering if the wise and informed members here, might offer their wisdom and guidance about what is out there or available now.
I am familiar with PICO, Picmaster 3.9 and Filter Meister ... but am interested in other programs/options for originating and editing plug-ins (nominally *.8B? and/or 2001 version of plugin.dll/52K).
Thank you,
Rick.
Plug-In Authoring Software ? (options?)
Clarification & Context (of request)
Dear All/Harald,
1. I have read all Harald's suggestions and comments on the plug-in creation pages here. I have also visited and downloaded the suggested software options (links) that I did not already have.
2. It is possible the 200K plus fans of Harald and this site might have other thoughts and suggestions (additional).
3. There are interface standardization issues caused by:
3.1 PC versus MAC graphic applications;
plus,
3.2 Photoshop versus Paint Shop Pro software applications;
plus,
3.3 Variations in the nature/version/function of the Adobe Plugin.dll file, SDK version and some core windows *.dll components ...
... that impact on the cross compatability of some existing plug-ins and/or plug-in authoring software.
4. Harald is already aware I intended writing a plugin authoring program (mentioned privately last December) to try to circumvent or overcome some of these issues ... nominally as my New Years resolution for 2005.
4.1 I was looking at Pearl, LCC or Java ... the later being basically standard on most computers using internet browsers these days (turned-on or off). Although a bit of an internet headache/nightmare, the average user does not know the reason for the original Java language push, was specifically its cross compatability between Mac & PC, etc.
Ditto for Pearl, though it would be more problematic (than Java).
I am likely to lean to Java, which is completely safe for in-system operations that have nothing to do with the internet ... like making or editing plug-ins. Another advantage is (because it is already on most systems), users would not need to download additional files or components, plus it should be possible to bypass the *.DLLs that are version-conflict problematic within Java or Pearl programming codes.
5. Context of request for idea's and alternative programs.
5.1 "Idea's" were to see what people thought should or could be included.
5.2 Alternative software was so I could look at it (just to check it out/test it ... not necessarily reverse engineer it {waste of time in most cases}).
I hope that give a clearer insight on my request.
Thanks,
Rick.
1. I have read all Harald's suggestions and comments on the plug-in creation pages here. I have also visited and downloaded the suggested software options (links) that I did not already have.
2. It is possible the 200K plus fans of Harald and this site might have other thoughts and suggestions (additional).
3. There are interface standardization issues caused by:
3.1 PC versus MAC graphic applications;
plus,
3.2 Photoshop versus Paint Shop Pro software applications;
plus,
3.3 Variations in the nature/version/function of the Adobe Plugin.dll file, SDK version and some core windows *.dll components ...
... that impact on the cross compatability of some existing plug-ins and/or plug-in authoring software.
4. Harald is already aware I intended writing a plugin authoring program (mentioned privately last December) to try to circumvent or overcome some of these issues ... nominally as my New Years resolution for 2005.
4.1 I was looking at Pearl, LCC or Java ... the later being basically standard on most computers using internet browsers these days (turned-on or off). Although a bit of an internet headache/nightmare, the average user does not know the reason for the original Java language push, was specifically its cross compatability between Mac & PC, etc.
Ditto for Pearl, though it would be more problematic (than Java).
I am likely to lean to Java, which is completely safe for in-system operations that have nothing to do with the internet ... like making or editing plug-ins. Another advantage is (because it is already on most systems), users would not need to download additional files or components, plus it should be possible to bypass the *.DLLs that are version-conflict problematic within Java or Pearl programming codes.
5. Context of request for idea's and alternative programs.
5.1 "Idea's" were to see what people thought should or could be included.
5.2 Alternative software was so I could look at it (just to check it out/test it ... not necessarily reverse engineer it {waste of time in most cases}).
I hope that give a clearer insight on my request.
Thanks,
Rick.
-
HaraldHeim
- Plugin Guru
- Posts: 3363
- Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: The Plugin Site
- Contact:
I don't see how it should be possible to write Photoshop plugins with Pearl, LCC or Java. Unless you write a Photoshop plugin in C (for Windows and MacOS) that can run Pearl, LCC or Java code.
By the way, there is already a way to write cross-platform "filters". You can run JavaScript scripts in Photoshop 7 and CS which should work the same under Windows and MacOS.
By the way, there is already a way to write cross-platform "filters". You can run JavaScript scripts in Photoshop 7 and CS which should work the same under Windows and MacOS.
Java Script > etc.
Dear Harald,
Agreed. I was looking at LCC (typo) for the base C, then thinking of porting it across. I did know of the Java scripting options in Adobe, Jasc and Corel - above 7x in the former and 10x in the latter.
As mentioned privately, my issue/objective is to come up with an open source alternative to the Adobe and Delphi SKDs - which in turn to compliment (not replace) software like PICO and Filter Foundry.
I looked at PSP 9 last night and agree with your comments (Gimp thread), more to the point of being less diplomatic than you.
Since the Corel involvement Jasc has moved further away from conventional artist-friendly layout/tools and closer to the non-artistic gimicks side of the programming track. This is exactly what knocked Corel out of the tertiary/academic mainstream market after Version 5. You'd think the morons would have learnt a lesson (back then)!
I don't blame the Jasc crew, because they did well to last as long as they did, on their own - plus we owe them a lot for their work and software during those years.
Really that deal with Flaming Pear, where a Singapore Investor was going to sponsor a merger, was their last chance of staying independent ... but as you know it fell through (would not have, if I'd know of it a little earlier ... as related to FP a few years back).
A good measure of the Corel degradation in PSP9 is - as mention in the first post in the Gimp thread - the wrecking of the line drawing tool. It was far better/easier to use than any others in market parallel/competition, but they "played with it", adding gimicks and at the cost of several key functionalities, effectively making it a dud/problematic.
In a phrase ... "They've got cow-dung for brains!"
Cheers,
Rick.
Agreed. I was looking at LCC (typo) for the base C, then thinking of porting it across. I did know of the Java scripting options in Adobe, Jasc and Corel - above 7x in the former and 10x in the latter.
As mentioned privately, my issue/objective is to come up with an open source alternative to the Adobe and Delphi SKDs - which in turn to compliment (not replace) software like PICO and Filter Foundry.
I looked at PSP 9 last night and agree with your comments (Gimp thread), more to the point of being less diplomatic than you.
Since the Corel involvement Jasc has moved further away from conventional artist-friendly layout/tools and closer to the non-artistic gimicks side of the programming track. This is exactly what knocked Corel out of the tertiary/academic mainstream market after Version 5. You'd think the morons would have learnt a lesson (back then)!
I don't blame the Jasc crew, because they did well to last as long as they did, on their own - plus we owe them a lot for their work and software during those years.
Really that deal with Flaming Pear, where a Singapore Investor was going to sponsor a merger, was their last chance of staying independent ... but as you know it fell through (would not have, if I'd know of it a little earlier ... as related to FP a few years back).
A good measure of the Corel degradation in PSP9 is - as mention in the first post in the Gimp thread - the wrecking of the line drawing tool. It was far better/easier to use than any others in market parallel/competition, but they "played with it", adding gimicks and at the cost of several key functionalities, effectively making it a dud/problematic.
In a phrase ... "They've got cow-dung for brains!"
Cheers,
Rick.
-
HaraldHeim
- Plugin Guru
- Posts: 3363
- Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: The Plugin Site
- Contact:
Well, Photoshop, PSP and Photo-Paint all use different script languages, so they aren't comaptible to each other. Besides, for professional developer it is no alternative, because you can't hide the source code and you can't do any pixel-based processing. Pixel-based processing would also be too slow for interpreted languages.