On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:10:56 +0000, Tim Roberts wrote:
Thomas Guettler <hv@tbz-pariv.dewrote:
>>
I tried PIL for image batch processing. But somehow I don't like it
- Font-Selection: You need to give the name of the font file. -
Drawing on an image needs a different object that pasting and saving.
- The handbook is from Dec. 2006.
I don't want to dissapoint you but PIL font handling sucks terribly.
I have repeatedly seen the attitude in your last point, and I simply do
not understand it. What on Earth is wrong with having a product that
actually becomes stable?
We all complain about Microsoft's feature bloat, rolling out unnecessary
new releases of their products year after year with features that no one
really needs. But when an open source product FAILS to produce a new
release every six weeks, we start seeing posts questioning whether the
product is still viable or has become abandonware.
I think if you really TRY to create your own project you'll understand
what's going on here.
From near 10 open source projects that I've started only 1 is living
today.
Once a product does the job it was designed to do, IT'S DONE.
Because there's no such thing as "do the job you where designed to do"
Example: designed for image manipulation. No matter how many features
you've already implemented there's always something more to do.
Personally, I think PIL is a great solution for batch processing, but
the beauty of the open source world is that the ARE alternatives.
Yes, it's open source, and everybody will win if you'll extend PIL to do
what you want.
Really, I do have some working snippets of code that do handle fonts
nicely with PIL images, read and parse OpenType tables, but I can't
publish it because it's optimized for my private needs like only two
languages: Russian and English.
I had to rewrite PIL's FreeType layer from scratch to do what I want.
You can do the same.
Ivan