Benchmark: Native vs snap getPointAtLength

HTML Preparation code:


<script src="https://rawgithub.com/adobe-webplatform/Snap.svg/master/dist/snap.svg.js"></script>

<svg id="snap"></svg>
<svg height="100" width="100">
  <circle id="circle" cx="50" cy="50" r="50" stroke="black" stroke-width="3" fill="none" />
</svg>

Script Preparation code:


var s = Snap('#snap');
s.width=100;
s.height=100;
var snapCircle = s.circle(50, 50, 50);
var circlePath = snapCircle.realPath;

Tests:

Native
document.getElementById("circle").getPointAtLength(Math.random() * 100);
Snap
Snap.path.getPointAtLength(circlePath, Math.random() * 100);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Snap

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	418818.8 Ops/sec
Snap	407723.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to calculate a point on an elliptical path: native JavaScript (using `getPointAtLength` from HTML5 canvas) versus Snap.svg (a library for creating vector graphics).

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **Native**: Uses the `getPointAtLength` method from HTML5 canvas, which is a built-in JavaScript function for calculating points on elliptical paths.
2. **Snap**: Uses the `getPointAtLength` method from Snap.svg, a library specifically designed for creating vector graphics.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Native (HTML5 Canvas)

Pros:

* Built-in JavaScript function with minimal overhead
* Widely supported by most browsers
* Easy to implement

Cons:

* Can be slower than optimized libraries like Snap.svg
* May not provide fine-grained control over path calculations

### Snap.svg

Pros:

* Optimized for performance and accuracy
* Provides more control over path calculations (e.g., support for curve segments)
* Can be used for complex vector graphics tasks beyond just elliptical paths

Cons:

* Additional library overhead and dependencies
* May require additional setup and configuration for optimal results

**Library: Snap.svg**

Snap.svg is a lightweight JavaScript library for creating vector graphics. It provides an API for manipulating SVG elements, including support for path calculations, transformations, and more. In this benchmark, Snap.svg is used to calculate points on the elliptical path defined by `circlePath`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other options, consider:

1. **Canvas.js**: A lightweight library for working with HTML5 canvas elements.
2. **Fabric.js**: Another popular JavaScript library for creating vector graphics and animations.
3. **SVG.js**: A library specifically designed for manipulating SVG elements.

These libraries offer varying degrees of performance, features, and complexity compared to Snap.svg and the native `getPointAtLength` function.

Related benchmarks:

Native vs snap getPointAtLength (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Snap

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Snap

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):