3 ms·
Most UI layout doesn't involve that much computation. JS is definitely fast enough.
by panic 11y ago
Most UI layout doesn't involve that much computation. JS is definitely fast enough.
- aikah 11y ago> Most UI layout doesn't involve that much computation. JS is definitely fast enough. The performances of editors like Atom or Brackets tell us another story. Web UIs might be fine for an LOB app but then, an LOB app doesn't need to be a desktop app. No, current JS engines (JS is a language, it doesn't have performances) are definitely not fast enough. Compared to the kind of performances that can be achieved with the JVM or QT.
- panic 11y agoDoesn't Atom use a web rendering engine? We're not talking about the DOM here, just pure JS.
- johncolanduoni 11y agoSure, if you use a platform that has something like react native. But the desktop app for the calculator used NW.js, so it used a nice, slow DOM.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago> JS is a language, it doesn't have performances This is not true. Unless you have a god-compiler that takes your JavaScript and spits out compiled code that doesn't use dynamic typing or a GC, the nature of the language has a significant influence on performance.
- aikah 11y ago> This is not true. Unless you have a god-compiler that takes your JavaScript and spits out compiled code that doesn't use dynamic typing or a GC, the nature of the language has a significant influence on performance. Well , my point is JS is a spec. You can argue that some language features will make the language slow(er than statically typed languages),and I'd agree.
- DiThi 11y agoAtom and Brackets use the big old bloated DOM, and not very well. At least in the case of Atom, it's used awfully, and plugins can block the main thread (and they do with big-ish files). Anyway, the discussion is the use of JS. The language is fine but the UI "library" is not (a whole web rendering engine).