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, 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.