Login  Register

Re: Laseray, contributions, ImageJ

Posted by Raymond Martin-2 on Dec 15, 2009; 12:04am
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Re-Laseray-contributions-ImageJ-tp3690010p3690013.html

On December 14, 2009 06:16:05 pm Gluender wrote:
> With respect to the present discussion (initiated by Raymond Martin)
> about altering the core of ImageJ, I should like to cite my reaction
> to a similar attempt about 9 months ago:
>
> -----------------------
> ...
>
> Again: "Go ahead" (et bonne route!)
> -----------------------

I am not sure what your point was with that excerpt.

> >  > engineering, domains that are still very much in their infancy. It is
> >  > just going to keep moving and changing. And users are going to want
> >  > newer, better functionality due to the needs of the domains they are
> >  > applying the application to.
> >  >
> >  > So it is really about how the need for change is handled and not
> >
> >about whether
> >
> >  > it is needed.
> >  >
> >  > Raymond
>
> -------------------------
>
> Raymond, I don't agree with this view. Those of us who use ImageJ on
> a regular basis, be it for routine work or for rapid prototyping,
> appear to be quite happy with the power of ImageJ and with the pace
> in which it's power is increased and with the comfort of being served
> with immediate fixes. Furthermore, substantial suggestions or wishes
> are instantaneously implemented and everybody is invited to
> contribute plugins or macros.
>
> This perfect service is provided by Wayne since about 10 years now
> (and about 20 if you think of Image for Mac).
>
> In fact, I'm not aware of _users_ who ever complained about the (kind
> of) coding of the core of ImageJ. Again, everybody is free to present
> another kind of ImageJ but please stop trying to alter an excellent
> and well-supported tool.

What have I attempted to alter that would in any way impede the present use
if implemented? The answer is nothing. I think you have not been reading what
I wrote properly.

Nowhere have I suggested to remove or alter functionality that would
break anything. Exactly the opposite is true. I am really starting to
wonder why certain people do not see this in what I wrote.

Please show me where I wrote anything to the contrary that would indicate I
had an intention to change functionality to the point where it would stop
people from using the program and I will clear up your misunderstanding right
away.

> A final remark:
> I don't know or understand why our newcomer to the list Raymond is
> less happy with ImageJ, but my strong impression is that the reason
> doesn't result from actually using ImageJ.

You are mistaken. Using it is how I have come to my conclusions.

> His suggestions concern features that I didn't see requested on the list, at
> least by users.

Do you honestly believe that users, in your definition of them, are the only
ones capable of coming up with all the good ideas for the program?

Is that the only way that ideas can be any good?

> Furthermore, the usual way contributions were introduced in the past,
> is by advice for users, image processing methods, or code (macros,
> plugins).

Usual does not mean "only", and it does not mean "best" either.

> So if you think that users will be grateful for some kind
> of installer, then please provide the necessary software and it will
> turn out how valuable your contribution is. Unless you do it, your
> laments and suggestions on this list appear somehow teasing.

I have already attempted to discuss the idea with Wayne and posted
on the list to see if others want it. Wayne is not keen on the idea (yet?),
so even if I put the code in a derivative version there is no guarantee
it could ever be in ImageJ.

It seems to some that it is not okay to discuss ideas before implementing
them. Am I to waste my time developing something that others will not use?

In case you do not know, in software development more discussion up front
means less to fix later, contrary to what some people believe. It is often
thought that if you are not coding nothing good is happening, which is
just not true. Software is like a mental model to those that develop it.
It helps to have a clear model in mind to do a better job. Coding alone
does not provide that.

Raymond