For raster graphics image processing, I'd highly recommend G'MIC. Otherwise, Python and especially for string using regex library. I wish there was a vector graphics version of G'MIC.
Reptorian
joined 1 year ago
I only do raster graphics image processing, so G'MIC it is. A entire coding language and it's a library in of by itself for that.
On non-DSL, don't have a fave. I'll choose one of these: Python, C++, C#.
Every languages has their own pitfalls. The answer on picking a language is to pick whatever works for you. There may be even domain-specific languages if you're interested in a domain, and it can be way more flexible than general-purpose solutions for that domain too.
I use 4 languages.
- C++ for adding features to a program.
- C# for making .dll for an application (
Paint.NET). Kinda similar purpose to what I do with G'MIC, except so much more limited. - Python for processing strings
- G'MIC for creating/editing raster graphics images (volumetric too)
Now, I wish there was a vector equivalent to G'MIC, but there isn't.
Also, highlighted the way you expect when you click next to braces works too.
Here's my opinion, a well-developed DSL could even be arguably more flexible than say Python even with existing libraries on their specific domains. So, if one is just limited to domains, they may be very well be preferable to general languages.
I have coded in C#, Python, C++, and currently nearly everyday, G'MIC. Which one of those are a DSL? The last one. What it is? It's a Domain-Specific Language that has been geared toward raster graphics image processing. Why do I use it? Looking at the stack-based processing, commands, built-in mathematical functions. It seems that it has a lot more things that are built-in than say Pillow library for Python and other things. And I only do create images with code, so I am happy with this, and I even did things like Python itertools combinatorics with more things like rank2list/list2rank variation of those combinatorics which aren't image processing by themselves, but can aid to it.
If I feel that it is way too limited for that Domain, then I wouldn't use it. DSLs are only good if the other options are much more difficult to build with and their flexibility are often enough to entice their audience which is one with limited use cases. Of course, generic languages are usually better even than most DSL even within their domains because of wider support, and wider audience. More DSLs would be better than generics given enough time and support for their domains in my opinion.
From some one who used Python as it was the easiest solution to few of my problems, and having to experience languages with brackets and/or endif/fi/done as ways to limit scope, I find that having things like brackets and/or scope terminators easier to parse and less error-prone. I'm thinking about moving on to Ruby whenever I had a need where Python would be a good choice, but the time it takes for me to understand a new language is blocking me from that.
Well, artists would disagree on that point, and I do agree with the artist. I do think ML at this current state and near future do have a limit. I can't see ML doing anything complicated in 3D like a CAD automobile.
Indentations does not really help readability that much in case of really, really, long code, and in some cases, a code can execute without with unexpected result because of one single indentation being off. Both of these why I like things like curly braces/brackets and terminators like endif/fi/done/end/etc. But, at the end of the day, if there's a readability problem, then that's a sign that the code needs to be reworked on.
My crazy take is that there needs to be a interpretative language alternative to Python which uses brackets to define scope and/or things like elif/else/fi/end of/done. Much easier that way in my opinion, and the ";" shouldn't be necessary. I'm used to Python, but if I had another language which can be used to serve similar purpose to Python with those features, I would never code in Python again when it comes up.
Having to code in Julia and G'MIC (Domain-Specific Interpretative language that is arguably the most flexible for raster graphics content creation and editing), they're the closest to there, but they're more suitable for their respective domain than generic ones.
I'm using G'MIC for raster-graphic image-processing, but I can do other things in it too with ease. I feel this post so much.
Open3D and PCL falls under independent programming language libraries, correct?
I only stick with these:
Easy.