31–34 of 34 posts
Out of 500 lines, about 30 lines are spent on the rant, and there are almost no comments of any significance anywhere else, not even a file header to explain what the class is and how it should be used.
Agree. I've written a PSD parser. My comments are also somewhat bitter: http://www.telegraphics.com.au/svn/psdparse/trunk
Something on your web server is turning that into http://www.telegraphics.com.au//psdparse/trunk -- but adding a slash on the end stops this happening. Curious. (I don't think it's Subversion itself; trying the same thing on another svn-over-http server I have handy doesn't produce the same results.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I seriously doubt that Adobe made the spec all spaghetti'd on purpose. They probably just kept hacking on new features without cleaning old code, and eventually someone went "Our spec is a nightmare!". At this point, someone with decision making power considered things for a brief second, squinted his eyes, and said "good."
That's why I said "to some extent". I agree that they did not intentionally plan to f * up their code. But I'm sure they could have been refactoring their spaghetti at some point, but obviously they didn't.
Business as usual in big monopolist land, really. The minnows will eventually bring them down anyway.
IIRC, Photoshop has defaulted to saving as TIFF since version 7.0 (introduced over seven years ago). I guess they realized long ago that PSD had become an unmaintainable mess. TIFF was designed to be extensible with custom data chunks and it predates PSD, so it probably would have been the best choice all along. I'd guess Adobe decided against it for "NIH" reasons: TIFF was originally created by Aldus, a competitor i…