Printable View
Can anyone from the Xara team add a performance comparision graph to the one at http://www.xaraxtreme.org/about/performance.html that would show the performance along with the free 2D C++ vector library 'AGG'. It can be obtained at http://www.antigrain.com.
...if you cannot do this, please, explain why not?..
Xara states that "Xara Xtreme is the world's fastest vector drawing program, by a huge margin. This is partly due to using the world's fastest vector rendering engine and partly due to the inherent Xara X architecture." Do you dispute this?
Hi Arlen,
I haven't seen any of the developers or Xara employees around the forum for a few days. They may not have seen your post.
Really, why should anyone care if the Xtreme library is faster than library X or vice-versa? It's what you do with it that counts.
Paul
Well, rendering speed does assist the artist doing his or her work. I've used Illustrator, Freehand, Inkscape, CorelDRAW!, and none of them do what Xara Xtreme does with such speed and grace. Some of the work I do is at this site:Quote:
Originally Posted by pauland
http://yantrayoga.typepad.com/noname/
Take a look... each drawing was produced in just a few minutes, many coming from inspiration, intuition. Enjoy.
The developers seem to be at a lull, on vacation, maybe. <smile>
frank
Hi Soquili.
Thank you for your response.
Hi guys,
The point is I'm a developer and the web page mentioned above shows the rendering speed of the several graphical engines. Now, I'm at the point of choosing the fast rendering engine for my needs. The AGG is the very powerful and fast open source library that allows developers to create stunting vector drawing programs. The AGG is as famous as the Cairo library is. So, why not to compare them both? The Xara CDraw engine is the alternative for me but before I choose I want to know the performance comparision. I do not want to clone or create a program similar to XaraXtreme. I just need this for my personal needs.
Best wishes and regards.
Several people on Talkgraphics use several illustration programs and I have no doubt that every one of them will say that Xara is the fastest illustration program out there - whichever way you look at it.
Given that is the case, you'd have to be a poor developer to turn the same library into a slow implementation, if you get my drift.
I don't see that there's any compunction on Xara to produce any comparison - they have enough other things to do!
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Frank
Who needs actual data when you have such reliable anecdotal evidence? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pauland
In regards to using CDraw in your own project I thought it was still closed source and the only timeline given for opening it has been 'soon'? Given that it seems like if you want to make any progress on your own project it would be better to choose another rendering engine.
Another topic of note is that the CDraw that will be opensourced might be slightly different than the version that's used for Xara on windows, as that version has some portions coded in Assembler, but the version used by the linux Xara is C for portability.
So, if the version that they opensource is the full C version, it will be a bit slower than the windows Xara (which is I think the version mentioned in the benchmarks on the Xara page).
On the other hand, if you're concerned about it you could always write your own wrapper classes around AGG's classes so that you only have one point of change if you later decide to use CDraw when it's open sourced.
. after reading your post, it occurred to me that something like what you're asking about actually did appear quite a while ago, when Xara first announced starting the Linux branch.
It was just a simple bar chart... on one side was a bar supposedly representing the speed of some other program, and on the other side... you had to scroll up to see the top... was the Xara speed bar - ten times taller. So there you have it... Xara is at least 10 times faster :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlen_Albert
In the begining, there was the Acorn Draw module. Then along came a guy called Gavin who decided to write an API compatible version of Acorn Draw module that was much faster. This was called GDraw and was purchased by Xara (CC) for their Artworks product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odat
When Xara were writing Xara Studio (the first version of what is now Xtreme), they took GDraw (written in ARM assembler), passed it through a home-grown ARM->x86 assembler converter and out the other side came an Intel DLL, also called GDraw.
Now, from this, you could suppose that CDraw is really GDraw passed through a homegrown x86->C converter and that the reason CDraw has taken a long time to be open sourced is that the code is horrible, being machine generated, and someone deep in the bowls of Gaddesden Place is beavering away trying to tidy it up. Of course, I could be extrapolating too far and it could be the case that Xara have written a brand new C-based graphics engine that happens to perform about the same speed as their assembler engine....
For more background on GDraw, read
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...2fb2f3c?hl=en&
Well, with CDraw as fast as it is on Linux I don't think many folks care how untidy the Assembler to C/C++ code might be. It works and there's nothing close to it in rendering speed on Linux or even Windows. It's simply ahead of its time: thanks be to whomever has had the vision to make it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by rbirkby
Thanks to you for the history...
frank
That's an interesting history, I did not know that! I got the assumption that there is a version of it coded in C from http://www.xaraxtreme.org/about/performance.html, which mentions that the benchmarks were done using the "platform portable C version of the Xara rendering engine".Quote:
Originally Posted by rbirkby
If it's the case that the current code went ARM Assembler -> x86 Assember -> C, I certainly hope that the delay in the release of the code is someone doing some serious cleaning up of things. :D