Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:02 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces As an answer to someone asking whether Unity will require a working OpenGL stack to operate in Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal", Mark Shuttleworth announced that Canonical would offer an optional, QT-based, "2D" implementation of Unity. Here is a video, too.
Thread beginning with comment 458319
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Future of Compiz
by vtorri on Sun 16th Jan 2011 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Future of Compiz"
vtorri
Member since:
2007-03-05

"Well, maybe it's because EFL it's nearly abandoned if compared with QML and it will never be stable software?

I don't know what other developers think, but I had my bad time already working with non-supported libraries..."

We are releasing the EFL next week or in 2 weeks.

comparison with QML (on set top box) : QML couldn't just draw and scroll a list with 6 items (with no graphic options, that is, it was roughly just a list of strings). No problem with the EFL and a bunch of graphics effects.

So, QML is just way slower than the EFL.

The EFL are used in around 2 millions of set top boxes, they are supported by several companies. Not a lot, though, unfortunately.

They are quite stable and not at all abandoned. Thanks for the troll.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Future of Compiz
by vivainio on Sun 16th Jan 2011 10:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Future of Compiz"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


comparison with QML (on set top box) : QML couldn't just draw and scroll a list with 6 items (with no graphic options, that is, it was roughly just a list of strings). No problem with the EFL and a bunch of graphics effects.


Citation needed, please. What hardware? QML can scroll huge lists with graphics just fine (even on older phones). Misconfiguration, perhaps?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Future of Compiz
by vtorri on Sun 16th Jan 2011 17:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Future of Compiz"
vtorri Member since:
2007-03-05

"
comparison with QML (on set top box) : QML couldn't just draw and scroll a list with 6 items (with no graphic options, that is, it was roughly just a list of strings). No problem with the EFL and a bunch of graphics effects.


Citation needed, please. What hardware? QML can scroll huge lists with graphics just fine (even on older phones). Misconfiguration, perhaps?
"

hardware: x86 @ 1Ghz + sgx 530 + 1GB of ram

The company who tried it used a list of 5 items with animations. 100% of CPU used, the fillrate was huge. They removed all the animations (so the simplest list), the animation was not smooth at all, with still a huge amount of used CPU.

The 1st design problem in QML is that there is one Javascript context per object (creating one costs a lot). You can't cache and reuse an object (you have to destroy it, then recreate it, and as creating one object is slow...). So you can't even cache the items of a scrolling list to have good speed on slow devices.

The 2nd design problem (not related to speed or memory consumption) is that they embed in one object the UI and the code. Which means a code that is not easy to maintain (while it would have been a better choice to separate the UI from the code)

After one year of development, trying to improve QML code, the company gave up and used something else.

Is there a video of a scrolling list on old phones that shows the smoothness of QML ?

Reply Parent Score: 1