Result: 1.592 seconds total startup time
This is the startup time for Krita when I have opened and closed the app twice.
Hardware: Intel 12600KF (stock) -- Kingston 6200 MHz CL36 -- Sapphire RX 7600 -- BIOSTAR B760MZ-E PRO -- Antec P6 -- Xilence XP550 -- ARCTIC i35 -- EVO 850 500GB
Software: Calculate Linux, KDE Plasma, Mesa open-source driver, XFS file system, Krita 5.1.5
Both GIMP and Krita open fairly quickly. It is often said that GIMP is less good for painting and better for photo manipulation. Krita is supposedly better for painting and less good for photo manipulation. But for the typical tasks I personally do, it makes little difference which of the two I use. I've also seen professionals using GIMP for painting, these were talented people. And their results were exactly the level of the best Krita users. Likewise, I have seen Krita users achieve photo manipulation results that were best in class. I think that the app has little impact on the result and that both GIMP and Krita are very powerful tools for both photo manipulation and painting.
The tools provided by Krita for editing digital paint work just as well for pixels representing a photograph.
Krita can open PSD files that even Photoshop cannot open.
Since version 4.2.1, Krita's brushes and other basic components are also faster than Photoshop's, which has been revealed in performance tests.
Krita comes with preinstalled GMIC, 100s of filters right from the box, and it has more brushes than GIMP.
Maybe that's the reason why the startup time is slower than GIMP.
Another possible explanation for the difference in boot time between GIMP and Krita is the difference in the code.
GIMP is programmed in C, while Krita is programmed in C++.
The Apache HTTPD webserver is in C++. NginX is in C. The latter wins all the benchmarks. And this is because it has no overhead from object-oriented rules.
Perhaps there are similar reasons why a raster graphics editor may start up faster when written in C than in C++.
In many cases C is inherently faster than C++.
It is also possible that C make you a better programmer. Code that utilizes the stack over the heap when possible etc.
In C++ you'll be more inclined to just use the heap for everything.
Linus said: “C++ can’t solve the problem of the C language at all, it will only make things worse. This is a really bad language.”
in Linus’s view, C++ solves all the wrong problems.
C++ leads to really really bad design choices. He says that developers “invariably start using the ‘nice’ library features of the language like STL and Boost and other total and utter crap,” that may “help” you program, but they cause infinite amounts of pain when they don’t work and
inefficient abstracted programming models.
Linus allowed Rust but not C++. Rust is better than C++ in memory management, concurrency and many other areas.
