Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Image::Magick: Still the best? Can it be improved?

by ggvaidya (Pilgrim)
on Oct 13, 2008 at 08:24 UTC ( [id://716762]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


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

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 CGI.pm, but people who don't want to have to learn CGI.pm'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?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://716762]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (5)
As of 2025-06-19 10:21 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?
    erzuuliAnonymous Monks are no longer allowed to use Super Search, due to an excessive use of this resource by robots.