Reaction vs MUI (as what concerns the API)

[Tcheko]

Reaction:
+ fast
+ small
+ expandable (boopsi objects)
+ integrated very well with AmigaOS
- not available on AROS
- not as many ready made custom classes or examples

MUI/Zune:
+ available on all Amiga like platforms
+ expandable (boopsi objects) with many available custom classes
+ very configurable
+ easy and fast to program
+ lots of documentation
- slow
- memory hog
- many different versions and classes make installation a pain
- user interface is non standard (e.g. PSI instead of standard screen mode requestor)

I prefer to use and look at Reaction. MUI is easier to program and powerful (more configurability and ready made custom classes). I hope that all Amiga platforms will support both at this point. I can't image doing without either.

MUI : Slow? Memory hog? Do you have any numbers?

To make some factual statement, we need to write a GUI benchmarking working on both ui framework : Reaction / MUI.

For example, how long does it take to MUI / Reaction to create a window with 1024 buttons (32 x 32 buttons grid) and release all resources. The window shall be opened and then closed and application exited.

The test should be run on the same hardware (let say a Pegasos2) and execution time measured from start to end of program.

Another version of the program that exit on window close button should be created. This version is for memory test:
- avail flush
- run <>nil: memtestprogram
- avail flush

Compare numbers.

This would give a raw and rough estimation about which one is the fastest (for buttons at least). MUI button should be set to something that looks like Reaction button.

I can write the MUI program test... if anyone feel writing the reaction one.

Both sources shall be published for comparison. No custom startup code allowed. The only allowed optimisation is using gcc -O3.

[Tcheko]

PSI doesn't use the standard asl.library screen mode requester under AmigaOS 3.x. Reaction leaves it up to the programmer but most use the standard screen mode requester which follows the Amiga User Interface Style Guide. Maybe MOS does something different but then it isn't AmigaOS and has redefined the user interface also. I prefer the AmigaOS and Reaction way as it's straight forward and less cumbersome to open a screen.

@Tcheko
PSI takes about 5 seconds to open it's window with my 68060@75MHz. That's just sad. Enough said.

Is it more 4s or 6s?

Perceived time worth nothing.

[Tcheko]

Not quite. AmigaOS 3.0 and 3.1 official GUI is gadtools. ClassAct was some obscure GUI toolkit needed bu some random applications such as AWeb. It was inferior compared to MUI back then already and making it official GUI toolkit for later AmigaOS versions didn't change that fact.

Simple benchmark with Aminet to confirm Piru's quote.

How many search hits with words : MUI, ClassAct, GadTools, Reaction

MUI scores 793
ClassAct scores 34
GadTools scores 46
Reaction scores 32

Damn. MUI is #1. It can't be that bad then...

Btw, latest OWB using MUI for OS4 looks really promising. And DigiBooster 3 beta 18 too. ^^

[Tcheko]

By all respect to the fact that MUI is in many fields superior to other GUI toolkits - especially from  the coders point of view, your "benchmark" is of course ridiculous.

Trolling is always ridiculous.

It is a well known fact that MUI is far superior to any toolkits from every possible pov.