On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:03:03PM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 16:08 +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
>
> > We gave up on clutter because of its performance. Not only did it
> > render slowly but creating a new clutter item was O(number of
> > already existing items).
>
> it's a scene graph: what did you expect? :-p
Hey, if I had known what to expect I wouldn't have been profiling
things! :-p ;-) But seriously, I was surprised to see O(n) insert
performance. Are scene graphs so new/esoteric that no-one has done
better?
> > Clutter seems to be focussed on eye-candy.
>
> "eye-candy" has generally negative connotations.
Don't get me started on "hacker"!
> Clutter is meant to be used to create compelling and dynamical user
> interfaces;
I did try to make it clear (and it's my bad if I failed) that I think
clutter is a good choice for desktop apps, which is obviously Gnome's
focus. Unfortunately I have to write genome browsers, in which
context "compelling and dynamical" means "can render a gajillion
alingment features before the user dies of boredom". Sucks to be me,
I guess. :-)
> ... on X11 you get an expose event for real windows; in Clutter, the
> only Window, as far as X11 is concerned, is the one implicitly
> created by a Stage. gtk+ 2.x too has moved away from sub-windows;
> and in 3.x gtk moves away from expose events delivered to widgets,
> in favour of a Clutter-like approach of top-down "draw" calls sent
> to each widget.
Thanks for the heads-up. Does this relate to what Havoc Pennington
says here:
http://log.ometer.com/2010-09.html
Regards,
Jeremy Henty
_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
