Re(2): optimizing compilers
Re(2): optimizing compilers
- Subject: Re(2): optimizing compilers
- From: Jens Bauer <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 04:20:31 +0100
Hi Ben,
On Fri, 1 Feb, 2002, email@hidden <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> For example, Quartz is very powerful and produces beautiful results,
>
> but it
>
> is very slow IMHO. Interpreted Display Postscript running in a separate
>
> process was faster for most operations than Quartz as far as I can tell.
>
>
What makes you (or anyone, for that matter :->) think that Quartz is a
>
significant time-sink for typical OS X usage? Does anybody have any
>
hard evidence? If so, I (and Apple, I suspect) would be interested to
>
hear it. From both my personal experience and benchmarks I have heard
>
about (but have not personally conducted), Quartz is actually
>
phenomenally fast at the things it is typically asked to do. There may
>
be relatively unoptimized (read: slow :->) parts of it, but I haven't
>
seen any evidence that that is an issue for typical use. I would look
>
elsewhere for the culprit.
I completely agree; the reason that many people blames Quartz for being
slow, is that the output on their screens feel slow, which may be due to
that the drawing is going through many "layers" of code.
-I'd say, if Quartz is slow anywhere, this should be filed as a bug-report.
I am convinced that if you make conventional drawing like Mac OS 9 does,
Quartz would be just as fast (maybe even faster at some points) at it as
Mac OS 9.
Love,
Jens
--
Jens Bauer, Faster Software.