I'm going to half-disagree with kleeder's latest post, in the sense that "learning a new tool" is a necessary evil, rather than a desired property, of making chiptunes. YMMV, but the interesting challenge is working within the limitations (i.e. crafting a hardware-renderable track), and if I can comfortably achieve that _without_ switching tools, it's going to be way more fun to me.
BUT, two "counterpoints" of sorts:
- It's obviously not realistic for a single tool to be able to handle everything well -- e.g. Schism can do spc well with SNESMOD, but e.g. hypothetically trying to shove, say, zxbeep support into a Schism fork is probably not a good fit. So I definitely agree with that point in the general sense.
- For Furnace in particular, IMO the salient point here is already made in the OP: at time of writing, it's missing hardware export, which I do agree ought to disqualify it (for now) -- the definition for proper chip formats is "can it play back on hardware?" where possible, and sap/sapx2 is pretty clear-cut. Unless there's some easily-viable conversion pipeline, but even then the output format would be something other than .fur anyway :P
DOUBLE-BUT, the fact that Furnace can't do Format X _yet_ doesn't mean it'll be stuck that way forever, or that it'll be a poor fit if it arrives. The ball's in their court, and maybe they'll knock it out of the park. Folks seem pretty thrilled with it so far compared to previous "multitool" attempts (defle, etc.)
I mainly just don't want to see folks going "well you can use tool Y instead" as some sort of excuse for why Multipurpose Tool X should _not_ support a thing. If it can do it well, then hell yes to multi-purpose tools, and if it sucks at it... well, _then_ we'll use something else. :P