Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW

Re: Image::Magick: Still the best? Can it be improved?

by mirod (Canon)
on Oct 13, 2008 at 07:07 UTC ( #716753=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Image::Magick: Still the best? Can it be improved?

I would say "go for it". See Crap is Gold for the long version of why.

You could also try working with the author of Image::Magick to improve the module, but I am not sure that's possible, depending on the extent of the changes you want to make. You be the judge of whether that's possible. BTW I don't quite understand your remark about Image::Magick being procedural. It is object-oriented.

  • Comment on Re: Image::Magick: Still the best? Can it be improved?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Image::Magick: Still the best? Can it be improved?
by ggvaidya (Pilgrim) on Oct 13, 2008 at 08:24 UTC

    I think changes to Image::Magick would be a bad idea. It perfectly mirrors the ImageMagick library, making it very easy to pick up if you're already familiar with the API. Starting a new module will let people who want the usual Image::Magick semantics to use them, and those who want a simpler system to use Image::Magick::Image.

    I was really thinking of CGI::Simple when I posted this question - I can't imagine using anything other than, but people who don't want to have to learn's idiosyncracies will definitely appreciate CGI::Simple.

    You're right, it is object-oriented! I think of Image::Magick as procedural because everything is run by the same object - Image::Magick->Read() returns a new Image::Magick object; all Image::Magick methods can be applied to either to the images or the library itself. Arguably, though, there aren't any other objects you might want to call anyway - I'll correct the question now.

    Thanks for the encouragement, and the link to the presentation; I'd never seen it before, and it's very insightful.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://716753]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2020-10-30 05:58 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    My favourite web site is:

    Results (278 votes). Check out past polls.