I'm sorry but I believe this a mistake in priorities. This is an image editing program. The UI is the core functionality. They could cut half their features and focus on a better UI and it would make it a better program.

There are web-based photoshop clones that offer better usability than GIMP. I shiver in disgust saying this out loud but it's true at this point. They're slow, more minimalist in terms of features but they don't have buttons that overlap or scroll bars popping up out of nowhere. The GIMP UI is an unusable mess. It's the UI equivalent of "programmer art".

> I wouldn’t say it isn’t already on par or more powerful than Photoshop.

Having just woken up, deprived of my morning caffeine, this sentence sent my brain for a real loop :)

his main point is powerful, but there's not enough funding for him to spend time on phrasing.

hahah well done

> aesthetics

It's not aesthetics. You make it sound trivial. People aren't talking about things like how the icons are designed. They mean the workflow.

Correct. I can get things done faster in krita than gimp. And that is basic tasks.

GIMP still lacks non-destructive editing, does it not? That alone is a huge deficiency in comparison to Photoshop.

Photoshop had non-destructive editing now? Its been a while ,but I thought that was lightroom that had the non-destructive editing features. Photoshop for me was about layers and masks

Photoshop had non-destructive editing for 15-20 years.

I think the issues are getting confused. Yes, Lightroom saves a separate file from your photos of the changes so in that sense it's non destructive, the original files are not changed.

Photoshop is non-destructive in that you can load an image into a layer and apply tons of layers above that layer each of which edits the layers below it in some way. The pixels in the image layer are never changed so it's also "non-destructive". But saving the file does overwrite the old photoshop file with your changes, unlike lightroom.

I think that's more a thing of personal preference. Many developers (me included) consider working on UIs a chore compared to implemented new features. And since they are free to do whatever they want, they stick to the features. Commercial apps are usually pretty far from "unlimited funds". However, they know how important a good UI is for applications when you ask people to pay money for it, so they pay people to work on the UI and not on anything else. It's out of their hands, thus, it get's done.

> the efforts are probably spent on core functionality over aesthetics.

This is the fatal error. Humans are the ones using that tool. What you call aesthetics is functionality.

We’re not talking about making it prettier we’re talking about making it more usable.

On top of that, it’s an image editing tool. It’s a tool that people use for the purpose of creating visual, often-times “aesthetic” works, and yet the UI is not important? Well then more humans making the decision to use it is not important.

“Aesthetics” is dismissive to what UX is about. I am certain there are some that would prefer doing image editing at the command line if they were in charge of UI which is exactly the wrong answer for this type of software.

"Sometimes when there isn’t unlimited funding and the ability to spend unlimited time, the efforts are probably spent on core functionality over aesthetics."

In my opinion, GIMP is the evidence that these efforts are misplaced, and focus should be the UI (at least after core functionality exists). No point is a fancy pants program that nobody actually wants to use.