Forum: Ruby MagickWand for Ruby 0.1.0

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
3afd3e5e05dc9310c89aa5762cc8dd1d?d=identicon&s=25 Tim Hunter (Guest)
on 2009-06-02 03:36
(Received via mailing list)
I've just uploaded the first beta release of MagickWand for Ruby, my new
binding to ImageMagick. MagickWand for Ruby is a complete rethinking of
RMagick. I call it "RMagick rebooted."

MagickWand for Ruby objects are managed by Ruby just like any other
object. There is no need for your scripts run GC or call a special
method to destroy them.

This release is the first beta so there's only 50 or so methods in the
Wand class. I'm planning to add a Pixel class for pixel access and a
Drawing class for 2D drawings but there's nothing there yet.

MagickWand for Ruby requires a _very_ recent release of ImageMagick,
6.5.0 or later.

If you're familar with RMagick probably you've got some questions.

1. Is it easier to install than RMagick? No, it's exactly the same. You
have to install ImageMagick and its delegate libraries just like you do
for RMagick. The MagickWand for Ruby gem does not install any
documentation, though, so it installs faster than RMagick.

2. Given that we've already got RMagick and MiniMagick, do we really
need another binding to ImageMagick? I like to think that MagickWand is
to RMagick what Heath Ledger's Joker is to Jack Nicholson's Joker.

3. Is this the end of RMagick? Absolutely not. I've supported RMagick
for over 6 years. I don't plan on stopping bug fixes or enhancements. In
fact, now that MagickWand is released my next task is a new release of
RMagick.

Everything there is to know about MagickWand for Ruby is at
http://magickwand.rubyforge.org.

Report bugs, ask questions, whatever, at the usual locations on
RubyForge [http://rubyforge.org/projects/magickwand/]. If you do try it
out, you'd be doing me a great favor by dropping me a line to say so.

Credits: Thanks to Luis Lavena for rake-compiler, and Thomas Leitner for
webgen.
4828d528e2e46f7c8160c336eb332836?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Heiler (shevegen)
on 2009-06-02 03:50
Why was MagickWand created?

I mean quite obviously you must think that MagickWand will be better
than the older RMagick interface, I am just curious what has motivated
you. I looked at the website but I did not find this information. :)
3afd3e5e05dc9310c89aa5762cc8dd1d?d=identicon&s=25 Tim Hunter (Guest)
on 2009-06-02 23:44
(Received via mailing list)
Marc Heiler wrote:
> Why was MagickWand created?
>
> I mean quite obviously you must think that MagickWand will be better
> than the older RMagick interface, I am just curious what has motivated
> you. I looked at the website but I did not find this information. :)

Well, I didn't think that my "motivation" would make any difference to
people who are checking out MagickWand for Ruby. But since you
asked...Who doesn't want a do-over? ImageMagick development is in a lull
and that gives me time to work on a new project. I can't change the
things I don't like about RMagick because that would break existing
code, so I'm taking the opportunity to write an entirely new library.

Compare MagickWand for Ruby to RMagick. The things that are different in
MagickWand are the things I don't like about RMagick. The things that
are the same are the things I do like.

Also there are some differences that affect only me. I think the code
for MagickWand for Ruby will be easier to maintain. The RMagick doc,
which I maintain by hand, is a pain to keep up, so the MagickWand for
Ruby doc is automatically generated by webgen.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.