On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Martin Baehr wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:43:22AM +1300, Ryurick M. Hristev wrote: > > The problem with "simple" is that sooner or later you will need something > > only a "complex" program can deliver. Then, if you move to the more > > "complex" program all the time spent on learning the "simple" one > > goes to waste. > > i disagree with this. > consider tuxpaint vs. gimp.
Well, this is my mileage; yours may vary :-) > there are general concepts in all these things that don't change. I wasn't talking about general concepts but specific techniques. This is were you spend most of the time and they are not transferable. > and how can you know if i ever have the need for the complex stuff. You don't. Your own personal experience tells you if it is likely that in the future you will want more or not. [...] > would you use blender in school to teach 3rdgraders the geometry of a > cone? sure, my shapes will be more complex that that, but not that much > more complex... Educational software is a completely different kettle of fish. I was under the impression that we were talking about mature audience. (you specified that you want it for you not for a 3rd grader) > > OTOH you don't have to learn all the features of the "complex" one. > > but you need to learn a lot more just to get started. This may be true, but again, my mileage tells me that it pays handsomely in the long run. Cheers, -- Ryurick M. Hristev mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Systems Manager University of Canterbury, Physics & Astronomy Dept., New Zealand
