2 ms·

Almost entirely different usecases. D3 is a data visualization tool. PixiJS is a rendering engine. You can see a good example of what D3 is used for: https://o

• wly_cdgr 6y ago
  I'm reasonably familiar with D3 as a frontend engineer who has used it for standard use cases at my current company. My question is why don't we use something like PixiJS instead, given that its API is much simpler / more straightforward / less idiosyncratic I don't see that it matters that it's not marketed as a dataviz library the way D3 is, given that it can clearly do everything D3 can (I guess aside from manipulating the DOM but why would that be necessary when every relevant browser supports canvas WebGL at this point?). So what is the issue? -... Accessibility, maybe? Seems pretty surmountable to me at first glance, if that's what it is. Or is there a performance gap? I guess that could be the case, although it would be kinda weird given that PixiJS is fast enough to handle 30+ FPS of richly graphical interaction