4 ms·
I applaud the efforts taken here, more than I've ever done, and it looks good. But wasn't there big talk of Ember's (JavaScript's) poor(er) performance on Andro
by emehrkay 11y ago
I applaud the efforts taken here, more than I've ever done, and it looks good. But wasn't there big talk of Ember's (JavaScript's) poor(er) performance on Android devices recently? It seems like this tech would be prime for Android users. I don't know if the performance is bad from a usability standpoint or just a pure numbers via specs point of view.
- jph 11y agoEmber is an excellent choice for offline-first mobile applications, like this one, because Ember can manage more on the client side. You're likely recalling the recent article on HN that showed Ember taking longer to download the first time vs. React on a mobile phone. In a third-world offline hospital records app, the first time difference isn't especially important, and also it's more likely the hospital record keepers will use tablets, not phones.
- hardwaresofton 11y agoThis is currently true, but one of the great (and terrible) things about Ember is that they adapt. They're currently working on a way to get past this, by actually enabling server-rendering (much like react): https://github.com/tildeio/ember-cli-fastboot https://github.com/tildeio/ember-cli-fastboot