179
Replies
Jasonized wrote:
Oddly enough, code bloat has nothing to do with "features" you personally are not using. Code bloat is a programming techincal term which refers to (commonly) the overuse of inheritance and poor programming practices.
That is code bloat.
Keeping/Adding features people want/it had before is not.
Let's at least try to be accurate here, if you're going to pick a rant that doesn't concern the actual question involved, please.
At least try and read posts properly before commenting on accuracy! 
If code bloat had been the subject which it wasn't, the phrase 'code bloat' would have been used and not just bloat, which people use to describe features, that they think are superfluous. Which if you read posts that led to this, is actually germane to subject, unlike code bloat.
Thanks Keith,
an interesting article. A little bit off topic, and I could probably plead that the original poster's comment was filtered by my own experience as "code bloat caused by excessive features that nobody who uses the program properly needs", but what the heck. 
Cheers!
Keith_Reeder wrote:
Feature bloat is the issue here, Jason. Code bloat and feature bloat are not synonymous, although you often find 'em both in the same place.
As focused as it is, Lr could be a lot leaner for me.
So do you think Adobe should take out the features you do not use and other people who do use them can then simply struggle?
The article you reference also has very little relevance to what people describe as feature bloat in software, which as I've already mentioned is usually how people often express a selfish point of view, rather than anything useful.
Software will tend to get more features added as that is usually how it is improved. Very often it actually reduces complexity as opposed to increasing it. I'm talking about good software here, not crud like iTunes, which despite having very little ability or features is a ridiculous 100+Mb download. Compare that to the 80Mb-ish for the far more complex and powerful LR [ both on the Mac]. LR also installs very quickly.
iTunes is very probably a good example of code bloat, judging by it's limited abilities and large install size.
So many of the features added to say Photoshop over the last twenty years actually replace faffy workflows and make the process of editing/designing so much easier. Take layer styles for example, completely irrelevant to photographic processing, yet a huge boon in workflow to designers. Creating drop shadows was a cumbersome process before this feature was added, not to mention the complete PITA of having to redo it all again if you had to say correct a typo or update text with a drop shadow. So is this tool feature bloat or a tremendous timesaver?
The people who like to go on feature requests and campaign against them [as they personally do not need them] would probably have objected to most of PS's features added over last 20 yrs as they weren't needed by photographers and PS wouldn't be the wonderful and versatile tool it is today, if they'd been listened to.
People witter on about how LR could be leaner/is bloated, so what exactly is unnecessary in this software?
All I can think of is the many, many features it lacks to make it the brilliant photographer's tool - and I do not mean by turning it into PS.
To go back to the article you referenced Keith. The first section about mobile phones shows how wrong headed it is. It criticised mobiles for adding too many features, yet the iPhone which potentially has many thousands of features [via the app store], not to mention being far more advanced and feature laden than any phone available when that article was written has proven very popular largely in part as it is so very easy to use.
It is not more features that cause problems, it is badly designed features.
I have used many programmes that are supposedly simple to use, but are in fact difficult to use as they are in fact simplistic, iTunes and Finder for example. I use a programme called Directory Opus on the PC for file management and it has a ridiculous no. of features compared to Finder, yet DOpus is much, much easier in practice to use.
People complaining about features that they do not want is a bug bear of mine in case it wasn't obvious. 
nSonic wrote:
Lets hope, that it comes back (as an option maybe) and lets hope, that the discussion about a term like "bloated" is ending soon. Lets discuss about a feature, a tool or a GUI - but not about using a developer-term in the very exact way... we are photographers, not rocket-scientists
But if you try and discuss things and use the wrong words, it all gets very confusing.
Speaking of wrong words, I hope there are software engineers working on LR and not rocket scientists!
But if you try and discuss things and use the wrong words, it all gets very confusing.
Speaking of wrong words, I hope there are software engineers working on LR and not rocket scientists!
Oh come now! Even rocket scientists need part time work!
I read what Melissa posted, and her last message was "we're discussing what to do".
I agree with at least some of what nSonic posted; I think the major opinions (both for and against), along with minor opinions, rants, and generally nasty posts have basically been covered. So, all we need to do now, apparently, is wait...
Hopefully someone from Adobe (Melissa?) will let us know what the outcome of the discussions are before the next release, so we can all let this thread die.
Cheers!
Jasonized wrote:
But if you try and discuss things and use the wrong words, it all gets very confusing.
Speaking of wrong words, I hope there are software engineers working on LR and not rocket scientists!
Oh come now! Even rocket scientists need part time work!
With NASA budget cuts that may well be true! 
knackerman74 wrote:
Thank you for point that out johnbeardy, I took a second to report
you for general harrasment, your 2500 count doesn't grant you the right to be rude.
- I have all the right in the world to point out that we were moving off topic and that we should stick to the subject,
feel free to create your own thread regarding bloated code.
And to stick to the subject, a question;
Does anyone know what adobe feels about the sticky filter issue? Are they following the forum in any way?
So you don't even bother to read the thread in which you are telling people what they should and should not be posting about. That's a bit dim really.
Maybe I should report you for General Laziness!
To save you the effort of reading the actual thread, the 3rd reply and several others after are from Melissa Gaul, who is one of the LR crew and they are listening to the requests being made.
AdChoices