Because it’s a photo editing tool, not a painter. Different priorities.
Because a shape tool requires non-destructive vector layers.
…and implementing that would require a fundamental overhaul of the current vector backend from 2006.
The development of 3.0 was focused on GEGL and non-destructive editing. Working on the shape tool in parallel would’ve taken away resources and pushed back the release date even further.
nope, and nobody knows why
The development of 3.0 was focused on GEGL and non-destructive editing. Working on the shape tool in parallel would’ve taken away resources and pushed back the release date even further.
Why can a shape tool not be pixel based? There’s no intrinsic requirement for vectors.
No it doesn’t, why not a bitmap shape tool?