On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 02:39:58PM -0700, Tim Chevalier wrote: > [redirecting to haskell-cafe] > On 10/29/07, Brent Yorgey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Haskell is a wonderful language, so I hate to say this...but personally I > > don't see the benefit of using Haskell here, unless the manipulations you > > want to do are very complex. Some simple shell (or > > perl/python/ruby/whatever) scripts to glue together some calls to convert > > (or possibly other ImageMagick utilities) ought to do the job just fine. > > > > If you're doing many image transformations, invoking an external > program like convert will get expensive due to context-switching. So > that's why something like the (not-yet-existent) bindings for > ImageMagick-as-a-library might be useful. > > I agree that laziness probably isn't going to be helpful, but there > may be interesting things to be done that are enabled by purity and > higher-order-functions. I'm working on the ImageMagick bindings > because I'm curious to find out. There are obvious things like being > able to define compositions of transformations -- which is easy to do > when you're calling library functions in-memory, and less so if you're > using a separate executable -- but maybe there are more interesting > applications too.
The OP specified that the images are around 5M in size, and need to be rescaled, so we're talking about quite a bit of computation per shellout (tens to hundreds of megacycles). Are context switches that slow? Stefan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
