On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:49:02PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Note that my primary target for optimisation is X11 and Mac. For me Qt4 > on windows is fast enough. > > [interesting stuff] > > >Well... when I think about it, it might be possible that QPicture > >compresses some operations and avoid, say, changing pens too often. > > That was my theory indeed. > > >So in theory there might be a gain (note that I haven't checked the code > >here). But then one might ask why TT puts energy into a rarely used > >device (QPicture) yet leave the main road in that unfortunate state it > >is in now. > > Well, I read they put a lot of energy in Arthur which is actually vector > based, isn't it?
Phhh...I am not sure what exactly 'Arthur' is. There are a few 'new' concepts, like multiple dawing backends (including 'vector based' ones), floating point coordinates etc. However, most of the energy they put into painting went into the general architecture (which is sound after all). Performance was abysmal in 4.0.x and is just reaching a bearable state with 4.1.3. The real problem in my opinion is that they do not realize that speed is a problem. They seem to have a few benchmarks showing that they are on par with, say, GDI, but miss obvious improvements on top of that. I further more doubt that these benchmarks are 'realistic' scenarios. [Like not swithcing colors while drawing etc]. Andre'
