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.
on 2009-06-02 03:36
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. :)
on 2009-06-02 23:44
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.