Re: 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 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.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

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 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.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]