investinme

> Cons: 64-bit only

I mean, when was the last time 32 bit CPUs were sold? In 2009 I bought a basic very cheap computer. It still had 64 bit.

> I wonder if there's a way to describe and interactively refine descriptions of areas of interest in a symbolic way—as Lisp trees if not Unix strings—maybe using existing neural networks. Certainly a speculative idea, of course.

I think the future is more like saying to the computer what you actually want. Like "delete the apple from the picture".

Photoshop already has a primitive form of this particular action, called Content Aware Fill, where you draw a rough selection around an object you want to delete, and it will fill a plausible background in its place. Works pretty well.

https://helpx.adobe.com/content/dam/help/en/photoshop/using/...

Photoshop actually has that. They are called Actions (basically macros).

You can select a group of operations you did in your editing history and turn them into an Action, with parametrization support.

You can then batch apply an Action to a bunch of files.

I'm not sure what I'm attacking, certainly not Vim.

I'm just saying that you can perfectly use Vim without a mouse, in fact most guides recommend you to disable mouse (and cursor) support.

But you can't use Photoshop or Blender without a mouse. Sure, you technically can, in a limited way, you can for example crop images or apply global filters in PS with just the keyboard, the same in Blender, but certain core manipulations are impossible in both without a mouse.

I would argue that it's because of the much higher resolution of images/3d data. 80x50 with a 100 character alphabet versus 2000x2000 with a 16.7 mil alphabet. In Vim you say "move the cursor after 'func'". How would that work in Photoshop? "move the cursor after RGB(25, 15, 9) RGB(98, 126, 22)?" You can't even see the pixels in PS, let alone guess their values.

There are pixel art editors which are completely usable with just the keyboard, but they are used for images smaller than 256x256.

I understand your point about Vim not following Unix philosophy, also the way Vim and Blender are similar.

I disagree that the GUI/command line divide is a "surface appearance". I'm not talking about Vim/VS Code kind of thing, where one is implemented in the command line, the other in the GUI, but are basically the same. I'm talking about apps which fundamentally require a pointing device. In Photoshop you point at a pixel and say "do something here", in command line ImageMagick you say "x=100 y=200". This is not a trivial difference to me, it changes everything and generates different usage scenarios.

I was talking more about the GUI/command line divide.

SolidWorks/Blender are fundamentally GUI apps, even if they do contain some programmatic features (like parametric filters/models/...). Also, all media software have something like "Unix tools who do one thing well" - plugins, filters, ..., but you compose them using the GUI.

You can only say this if you have a very limited imagination of what "image editor" is.

Please explain to me how you imagine creating a mask around a human so that you can "extract" him from the background in the command line.

> I'm not saying you're lying but maybe they misspoke or you misremembered.

No, that dev never did any serious image editing. He was just full of himself and of the "superior UNIX philosophy", the thought that there might be domains where that doesn't apply just never crossed his mind (image/audio/video editing being a major one)

That was exactly my point.

ImageMagick and Photoshop serve completely different needs. You can't replace one with the other.

Nobody hates Photoshop. In fact it's one of the most loved software out there.

I'm a developer and a Photoshop user and love it. The Unix philosophy would be a disaster for a image editing software (ImageMagick much?)

Once a developer who spent all day in VIM & co was honestly arguing with me that Photoshop should be a command line app. I filled that under "shit developers say" and "delusional".

I propose a new law: any sufficiently outrageous scam is indistinguishable from a unicorn

This, Theranos