[luatex] LuaTeX file almost 2.5x bigger

[Patrick Gundlach]

>>>> 2.4M Jul 25 09:35 tesis-lualatex.pdf
>>>> 945K Jul 25 09:40 tesis-xelatex.pdf

Even similar when the streams are uncompressed:


 12M 2010-07-25 18:24 luatex.pdf
4,1M 2010-07-25 18:24 xetex.pdf


> 
> I bet on the different ways to manage text.

"LuaTeX":

0.98 0 0 1 226.832 147.716 Tm [<0057>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 230.145 147.716 Tm [<0058>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 235.264 147.716 Tm [<0055>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 238.686 147.716 Tm [<0044>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 242.624 147.716 Tm [<004F>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 247.57 147.716 Tm [<0056>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 251.064 147.716 Tm [<00B5004F>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 258.531 147.716 Tm [<0052>-234<00560048>-234<0053>24<005800480047>25<0048>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 301.038 147.716 Tm [<004F004F>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 306.19 147.716 Tm [<0048004A0044>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 318.952 147.716 Tm [<0055>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 324.744 147.716 Tm [<004B00440056>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 337.581 147.716 Tm [<0057>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 340.894 147.716 Tm [<0044>-234<0048>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 351.344 147.716 Tm [<004F>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 356.29 147.716 Tm [<00480051>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 365.713 147.716 Tm [<0057>]TJ
0.985 0 0 1 368.715 147.716 Tm [<004800510047>]TJ
0.98 0 0 1 383.138 147.716 Tm [<004C>]TJ

"XeTeX":

<0028002f>-273<00330035002c00310026002c0033002c0032>-273<00270028002f>-273<00360024002500280035>]TJ ET 0 G 0 g BT /F1 12.328 Tf -14.3 2.34 Td[<0044>-288<005600af>-289<0050004c00560050>33<0052000f>-287<00560048>-289<005300520051>33<0048>-287<0046>23<00520050>34<0052>-288<0047>24<00480057>30<004800550050004c005100440047>25<0052>-288<005300520055>-289<00580051>-288<0031005205fb003c>86<0052000f>]TJ ET BT /F1 12.328 Tf 248.69 2.34 Td[<0074063c063c>]TJ ET BT /F1 12.328 Tf 262.91 2.34 Td[<005c>-288<0047>23<0048>-288<0044004b00af>-288<005400580048>-289<00560048>-289<004f0048>]TJ -277.21 -14.44 Td[<0046>24<005200510056004c>2

No Tm and only few TJ operators in XeTeX.


$ grep -c Tm xetex.pdf luatex.pdf 
xetex.pdf:0
luatex.pdf:218084

$ grep -c TJ xetex.pdf luatex.pdf 
xetex.pdf:264
luatex.pdf:218084

So it seems that XeTeX is more efficient in positioning text, but I am not going to judge which is better, as I have no understanding of the background mechanism.

One thing that strikes me is the alternating 0.98 and 0.985 which doesn't look like a big difference to me but leads to different positioning lines(??).


Patrick