Raul, thank you for the detailed comments. I think we agree in many points, except one I wanted to clarify, see below.
--- "Miller, Raul D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure if this is worth it, but would consider > > > it if presented with arguments. > > > > In "cube" OpenGL Lab Demo with window size > > about 1000x1000, I compaired > > > > smoutput 6!:2 'drawbox $0' > > > > It's ~x3 slower in new Win OpenGL. > > Note that the cube demo doesn't use much geometry. > Therefore, it's not a good example to use to justify > speeding up the rendering of geometry. 1. I was not measuring rendering, I was measuring the cost of calls to geometry primitives. > Also note that the cases where rendering geometry > quickly will be critical are cases where the display > is highly dynamic. 2. These calls have linear cost, so I don't have to show a large set, only a sufficient set, which cube demo has. 3. Cube demo is "dynamic" enough, to because on each redraw it rebuilds everything, rather than replaying old scenes. > Studying the code, I think most of the time penalty you > see for the cube demo is at the last line of the paint event > handler. The upside here is that once you have a static 4. That was a different aspect, which was not included in 6!:2 'drawbox $0', but was addressed later. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
