We should probably reduce the number of tools to make it more accessible, but the current user base have various preferences in how they like to process images. We also like to let it be a bit of an "experimental box" for new interesting algorithms that developers want to try out, the software is both for users and developers.
Which is what I've pointed to in the past as the reason I no longer use RT - I was a user waaaay
back from when Gabor was solely responsible, and a huge advocate for years - and I've been shouted down for saying it: RT has become primarily a coders' playground, and far less
, a photography tool.
Nothing wrong with that, but I continue to maintain that until the unnecessary (I use that word deliberately and advisedly) complexity is robustly addressed, it will continue in the direction in which it has been inexorably heading since going Open Source - more and more an offputting, overly complicated (for no obvious
advantage) niche product with little to attract most photographers.
Rob mentions Photo Ninja up the page: quality of output apart (and like Rob, I'm a PN fan), it too has some very clever, very versatile coding, but it's hidden from the user
, working as it does, behind the scenes of an apparently quite limited feature set and UI: this allows the photographer
to focus on results, without having to deal with and work past the almost guaranteed (unless you coded it
) paralysis of RT option overload.