3 ms·
It’s 10x slower than vanilla which makes this an ideal use case for transpilation. I bet you could just take one afternoon to write a vite plugin
by pyrolistical 11mo ago
It’s 10x slower than vanilla which makes this an ideal use case for transpilation.
I bet you could just take one afternoon to write a vite plugin
- maxloh 11mo agoWhat is the use case of this library given that vanilla JS is 10x faster?
- aabhay 11mo agoPerhaps non-browser usage?
- elygre 11mo agoMaybe it's ease of development, and resulting readability? I did enjoy the example code, compared to the native javascript (both shown in the article): var draw = SVG().addTo('#drawing') , rect = draw.rect(100, 100).fill('#f06')
- bryanrasmussen 11mo agowhy would the native JavaScript not be something like (probably errors here, so like, not necessarily this precisely) const div = document.getElementById('drawing'); div.innerHTML = `<svg width="100%" height="100%"><rect width="100" height="100" fill="#f06"/></svg>`; obviously if the what is going in can have user input in some way then open to attack using innerHTML but otherwise it seems like the structure of the example native JavaScript is made in such a way as to make the SVG.js version seem super cool in comparison.
- jasonjmcghee 11mo ago> Obviously not as fast as vanilla js I had a similar question- why is it obviously not as fast as vanilla js?
- cal85 11mo agoBecause it’s written in vanilla JS.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]