On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM, David Joyner<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ondrej Certik<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:30 PM, David Joyner<[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > ... > >> >> So what are the arguments against PIL and for VIPS? > > Here are two reasons ("Why use VIPS?") > http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/supported/7.18/doc/html/vipsmanual/vipsmanualse13.html#x20-850003.1 > and ("libvips overview") > http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?title=Libvips > In particular, it is scalable and certainly more "state of the art" than PIL. > The page http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?title=Speed_and_Memory_Use > explains how it is faster than PIL, Octave, Imagemagick, and others. > >> >> What I hate about PIL is the lack of docstrings with example doctests. >> But honestly, I hate this about Python standard library too! >> > ... > >> >> http://www.pythonware.com/library/pil/handbook/index.htm >> which is not bad, but sphinx is better. > > VIPS has much better documentation, however, it is written in C++ with > swig Python > wrappers (http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?title=Python) , so > it is better to read > http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/supported/7.18/doc/html/vipsmanual/vipsmanual.html > or the man pages for each command > http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/supported/7.18/doc/html/man/ > Needed are pythonic docstrings though. > > This is a more complicated package than PIL, but I think one should work with > it > (which I plan to do) before proposing what Sage should include.
I see, thanks. Post here how it goes. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
