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.
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
What is the use case of this library given that vanilla JS is 10x faster?
Maybe it's ease of development, and resulting readability?
I did enjoy the example code, compared to the native javascript (both shown in the article):
why 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.
> Obviously not as fast as vanilla js
I had a similar question- why is it obviously not as fast as vanilla js?
Because it’s written in vanilla JS.
Perhaps non-browser usage?
I typically use d3 for any generated SVGs.
Anyone know a Python library for manipulating SVG images?
Not what you asked for, but something you might find useful: https://github.com/andy31lewis/brySVG
A great SVG kit for Brython (browser Python)
I've been meaning to look into:
https://coderivers.org/blog/python-svg/
You mean svgwrite (https://github.com/mozman/svgwrite) which looks like it is no longer maintained?
I know of svg.py (https://github.com/orsinium-labs/svg.py) and drawsvg (https://github.com/cduck/drawsvg)... I have played with both a bit, no idea how they compare to others.