----- Forwarded message from Youness Alaoui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
From: Youness Alaoui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [E-devel] Starting programming in EFL Exactly, I don't care much about the performance (as long as it's not affecting usability). I was just answering Michael that his "EWL has better performance, period." is a bad argument since it is unproven facts. And I don't care about those 'facts' since ETK devels could say the same thing, and I was pointing out that the EWL_Performance page was not very significant if we don't plan to use thousands of widgets. On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:39:49AM -0500, Nathan Ingersoll wrote: > On 9/9/07, Youness Alaoui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm not talking here about what the human eye/brain can perceive. But if > > you want more details. I was refering to the wiki page about EWL > > performance. That's one of the main arguments used by the EWL team, and it > > is true that EWL looks MUCH more performant if we reason by looking at > > those numbers. > > It is? I don't recall ever telling someone that performance is the > main reason to use EWL. I'm fairly certain I told you to take those > numbers as a way we are testing widget scalabiity. The other toolkits > are there for a frame of reference, since it's hard to know what is > "good" or "bad" without a frame of reference. > Maybe not you, but I've heard others.. > > But seriously, how many applications use 100K widgets ? What are the "real" > > performance numbers ? If we compare each and every > > widget provided by EWL and ETK, which ones are faster? > > what if we use 10 widgets and not 100K widgets? which toolkit is more > > performant ? > > "Faster" doing what? Setup, layout, repainting, scrolling, etc, etc? > What theme are you using? How many different images or fonts are used? > What features are you using for those particular widgets? There are > many things you can test for performance. I took the time to test and > optimize one case, but I have found that test useful for improving > other areas as well. I barely have time to work on EWL code let alone > test and compare every single aspect of various toolkits. > Yep, that's exactly what I had in mind, being able to see the time (and memory) used for each widget, for each operation, creating it, configuring, repaiting, etc.. I might do it myself, I'm not asking you to do it, I'm just saying that unless documents like that are provided, I don't think that saying "X is more performant than Y" is a valid statement. > > That test was merely a scalability test, that's all it is. I don't plan on > > use ETK or EWL in such proportions. If I needed to create a chart > > with hundreds or thousands of buttons and labels then ok, EWL is better, > > but for a "normal" application, I don't know which one is more > > performant that the other, and even if EWL is still more performant, if > > it's a 5% increase in performance, is it worth it to choose EWL over ETK > > because of performance, if overall, EWL responds less to our demands... > > That's what I'm talking about, so please, no need to use such an argument. > > Why are you so concerned about performance for such a small case? > Unless the toolkit is causing blocking points, busy loops, or doing > something else stupid, there will most likely be very little > difference. > > > And by the way, quicksort might be faster than bubble sort, but only for > > large numbers of 'n'. I'm sure that bubble sort is faster on smaller > > samples. So if you want to use a sorting algorithm, you would see "if > > you'll work on small samples, use bubble sort, if you plan on sorting huge > > samples, then use quicksort", so if you know in advance that you'll never > > sort a list of more than 5 elements, why use quicksort ? > > And unless you are repeatedly sorting this small data set, how is it > of any interest? The difference is going to be barely measurable on a > modern system. Exactly, I don't care much about the performance (as long as it's not affecting usability). I was just answering Michael that his "EWL has better performance, period." is a bad argument since it is unproven facts. And I don't care about those 'facts' since ETK devels could say the same thing, and I was pointing out that the EWL_Performance page was not very significant if we don't plan to use thousands of widgets. Thanks for answering! KaKaRoTo ----- End forwarded message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
