On Fr, Aug 02, 2013 at 08:18:58 +0200, Ofnuts wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 10:47 AM, Josef Wolf wrote:
> >On Do, Aug 01, 2013 at 09:44:59 +0200, Ofnuts wrote:
> >>For such simple processing, you should consider using ImageMagick.
> >Thanks for the pointer, Ofnuts!
> >
> >I am currently using IM. But my processing got so complicated, including
> >various levels of quoting through muiltiple levels of schell scripts.
> >
> >I have a strong feeling that it is time for me to switch to a real, reliable
> >programming language, which script-fu would be (so I hope).
> At the risk of raising some eyebrows, better switch to python.
> You'll find more uses for it outside of Gimp,

I know python and I know scheme (and a lot of other languages, if that
matters). Granted, I don't know the scheme dialect used by gimp.
I'd rather use any lisp dialect in favour of python. I started to learn
python, but I broke, since I just can't get used to python's lambda's. Due to
the indentation syntax, defining lambda's seems to be very ambiguous to me.

OTOH, I'd probably never need lambdas for picture manipulation 8-)

What about perl? how stable are perl's bindings to gimp?

> and inside Gimp you
> can do more things with it than with script-fu (like create your own
> dialogs...). It is also a thousand times more readable.

Ough? Isn't script-fu the _primary_ scripting language for gimp? How comes
that python, which is working on top of the primary language can be more
reliable than the primary language?

Maybe my best bet would be cl-magick? Unfortunately, all the links on
http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-magick/ seem to be dead :-(

Josef Wolf
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:    gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Reply via email to