Re: [Gimp-user] batch mode in gimp?

[Ofnuts <ofnuts laposte net>]

On 08/03/2013 11:57 AM, Josef Wolf wrote:
> 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?

I don't think anyone is still using them these days.
> > 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?

Define "primary". Historically first, yes... but all script-fu bindings 
are also availabe as python-fu ones, and the python interpreter you use 
has likely several millions more lines of code executed under its belt 
than Scheme, so its stability cannot really be a concern. Python-fu 
isn't written on top of Scheme but on the side... And just in case, I 
said 'readable', not 'reliable'... for instance in Python you can access 
some member of an aggregate using mnemonic names and not random bursts 
of C,A,D,R,(,)

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

Not sure that would be a significant progress...