Re: ext/imagick update (fwd)

On Wednesday 21 November 2001 16:58, Robinson, Mike wrote: > Sterling Hughes writes: > > Really, I've *never* come across a piece of code that used > > imagemagick. I think it definitely does have a use, don't get > > me wrong, I'm just doubting that the use is widespread enough to > > be in PHP's cvs currently... > > Well it's taken several years but finally you posted > something I don't agree with. :) > Wow, several years, that almost seems too long :) > So imagemagick would be less popular than, say, Ovrimos, YAZ(eesh), > SESAM, Crédit Mutuel CyberMUT... > no, I don't remember saying these belonged in PHP's CVS, they are there for a large part imho legacy reasons and laziness (ie, not enough bitching when they were proprosed). > I could see imagemagick giving gd a real run for its money > in the PHP extension popularity contest, particularly after > it has matured and had its featureset (hint hint..) enhanced. > I couldn't... The library its based on is somewhat ugly, furthermore, its slower from what I can see... Currently its not enhanced and its not that important. > Perhaps if it were added to the base code the author would be more > inclined to enhance/update/maintain it. Just a thought anyways. > Why? Because its in PHP's cvs, the neatness of that grows old very quick :) -Sterling