Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

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

by ggvaidya (Pilgrim)
on Oct 13, 2008 at 08:24 UTC ( #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
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://716762]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (7)
As of 2019-05-22 11:42 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you enjoy 3D movies?



    Results (139 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?
    • (Sep 10, 2018 at 22:53 UTC) Welcome new users!