From: Clifford Heath <no.spam@...>
Date: 2007-05-18T07:00:04+09:00
Subject: Re: what's the most common library for Ruby image processing?

Giles Bowkett wrote:
> Hmm, that's weird. It looks like you're right, but why do they make
> such a big deal about being better than ImageMagick when IM gets you
> such full-featured stuff and ImageScience is so much smaller and
> focused? I think ThumbnailScience might have made more sense. Why not
> just call it CleanThumb or something? Is it some ego thing?

Without having ever played with IS, it could be because RMagick
leaks memory so badly as to make it unusable for a wide variety
of applications. That's my experience anyhow. I believe that
ImageMagick doesn't have the same problem, but I haven't tested
that.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better, though RMagick's feature
set is wonderful.

Clifford Heath.