Secondly you clearly chose not to read what I wrote or failed to understand it, I cannot make you read it or understand it. En contraire, I think Scott (and ultimately I myself) understand it all too well. I'm afraid the flaw really is with you - you are mistaking LR's non-linear workflow for history, which it isn't. It truly is like Scott said - record a few paintbrush blobs here and a few adjustments there and you can all do it with the tiniest bit of human-readable text in metadata. For sake of argument, you could do the same with AI's brush tools, but still, as soon as you apply a "destructive" operation after that, it would not work. Similarly, we could have things like the round corners effects or non-destructive pathfinders for many things, but again, as soon as you apply another operation that requires expanding or otherwise destroying this parametric relationship, it's all gone. The problem is not getting individual parts to work with history, but to create a system that requires as few of these destructive operations and keeps the "history" intact. Trust me, I have used 3D programs with and without history, with and without parametric objects and it's not that simple. At one point, any history breaks and converts your 3D stuff to otehr entities to "freeze" a specific state or alow further editing. Whether it's a NURBS sweep surface in Maya that will lose its relation to the curves forming it initially after a trim, a history stack in MAX needing to be collapsed for Dynamics to work or a sphere object in Cinema 4D needing to become polygonal for selective texturing - there's a good chance you will hit one of these obstacles during any given project. Also, you are too bound on the visual side of things - it's one thing to blend pixels, another to work with vectors. You cannot apply history operations to vectors on PS, can you not? You cannot revert path adjustments by brushing on some history nor can you apply history to smart objects, if you edited the vector data inside. It's only consequent and highly logical for a program that still primarily works with pixels, but if AI worked this way (i.e. only on the rendered appearance), it would be useless since then equally the slightest transform operation would enforce a re-render of the result, eradicating any history relations. And finally some friendly advice: I know you and I will never get along (and I presume neither will Scott), but seriously, what's gotten into you? Everybody knows by now that you are secretly married to John Nack and the PS and AI teams, but frankly, you are ridiculing yourself with comments like "it is good fortune that you are not on the team as very little would be accomplished" it is definitely out of line and it doesn't befit you. I always thought I have the premium around here on shouting at people... Really, I'm shocked and dismayed and this single comment has made me lose all of what little respect I may ever have had for you. You are acting like a schoolyard bully and allow yourself to be turned into Adobe's apologetist. Reversing your argument: What were to happen, if you and exclusively you had the sayso in AI's future? It doesn't bring up cheerful images in my head, frankly... So for what it's worth: Take it back a notch! Let us nerds be nerds and yes, let us be cycnical and sarcastic about Adobe. We will gladly leave all that kissing of certain body parts and that "constructive" fluff to you, if you think it achieves anything. Otherwise give us some leeway here - we may not always be nice, but just like you we have worked in the trenches for years used a ton of programs, so clearly we know at least a tiny bit about what we are speaking... Mylenium
... View more