Urgh, Mipey posted before I finished writing, but I'm posting anyway even though he mentions feature creep, which I also mention bleah whatever:
I guess I just don's see it as a "workaround." If there were a Layout Variables feature, and it didn't work properly, then you'd be forced to do a "workaround" such as making your own variable holder object.
Since there are no Layout Variables, then making your own variable holder object isn't a workaround. It's not a hack
, it's a technique
. It's not a bandage for a broken feature, it's a method to a means. Where you see a workaround, I see a clever solution to a problem.
I'm sorry, but I feel pretty strongly about this sort of thing. If you can do a task easily with a couple of clicks or few events, then a full-blown feature that does that exact same thing is largely unnecessary, isn't it? I'm not against adding new features at all, but if a feature is to be added then let it contribute to productivity in some significant
And quite frankly adding little, single-task features like this, over time, will just lead to feature creep, or software bloat, or however you want to term it. Slippery slope? Maybe. But a sprite or a text object is a multi-tasker. You can do the same task without
adding a new feature. And keeping out unnecessary features keeps Construct lean.
So if you have to perform some task in Construct, ask yourself... is it hard to do? Is it laborious? Does it involve complex math? Will an alternate method markedly increase development speed or productivity? Will an alternate method markedly increase runtime performance? Does a means to do it simply not exist? If so, then request away. Otherwise, ask yourself if it's really necessary. And I simply fail to see how Layout Variables are necessary.
No offense, Aeal