Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Paths.js vs Pixi.js, the Slant community recommends Pixi.js for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript drawing libraries?” Pixi.js is ranked 12th while Paths.js is ranked 21st. The most important reason people chose Pixi.js is:
Pixi is a WebGL renderer, but can fall back to canvas if WebGL is not supported or turned off.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Just helps building graphs, complements template engines or data-binding libraries
Can be used together with a template engine such as Mustache or Handlebars to display SVG graphics or instead of a static template engine, you can use a data binding or MVC/MV* library, such as Ractive.js, Angular, Mithril or Facebook React.
Pro 3 APIs for the price of one
3 APIs of increasing abstraction:
- Low-level (svg paths)
- Basic shapes (Polygon, Rectangle, Bezier, Sector, Connector etc..)
- Basic graphs (Pie, bar, stock, radar, tree, waterfall, sankey etc...)
There is no magic, you can have as much control as you want on how you define your graphs, source code very readable.
Pro Lightweight
18kb minified.
Pro Supports WebGL w/ canvas fallback
Pixi is a WebGL renderer, but can fall back to canvas if WebGL is not supported or turned off.
Pro Will be familiar to ActionScript developers
Pixi.js uses a code structure that's very similar to ActionScript.
Cons
Con Not a complete solution
Pixi only provides the renderer.
