4 ms·

We are in a different era now, where desktop apps are written in JS. Performance is implicitly thrown out of the window(s) when compared to software written for

We are in a different era now, where desktop apps are written in JS. Performance is implicitly thrown out of the window(s) when compared to software written for control over every bit of CPU and memory usage.

mschuster91 10y ago
But the JS ecosystem learns things! They implement tree shaking and other stuff to improve performance! Obviously real programmers learned all this decades ago - same for the "NoSQL" followers who after years of struggling with piles of cr.p finally (re)discover what a true ACID-capable database is... I'm just waiting for the JS world to rediscover threads and proper multitasking, but given the track record I don't expect that in the next decade. Seriously, the JS world is a hellhole of disasters, and many of them easily preventable if the people acting as "evangelists" actually had a bit of clue about what they're talking. And to top it off, a JS-only implementation will never be nearly as fast as well-written C or even C++ code, no matter how hard "evangelists" push it.
- movedx 10y ago
  You'll probably get down-voted for your choice of language, but I agree. I actually feel what's going to happen is the JS community will start implementing WebASM and other very low-level mechanism to improve the speed of slow software components and, given enough time, will eventually just have entire binary applications being delivered through the browser (automatically installed, without asking you.) We'll go from `yum install software-suite` to `https://www.software-suite.com/` https://www.software-suite.com/` and the results will be the same. We'll have gone full circle.
  - corndoge 10y ago
    I agree with you. Actually I think that at this stage, the browser should be viewed as a sandbox that can fetch and execute arbitrary binaries; then we can finally get past all the hacks that Web tech (js/dom/html/css/templates) is using to approximate that and actually build it for that express purpose, which should lead to better security (since we aren't pretending about what's happening -- it's untrusted code execution) and a better UX overall.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      I don't think the developers of any of the main browser's JS engines pretend they're not going to be executing hostile code. In fact I struggle to think of better embeddable software sandboxes than V8, SpiderMonkey, etc., especially now that they support WebAssembly.
      - movedx 10y ago
        Good point. These are smart people developing these sandboxes - they know what they're getting themselves, and their users, in for.
    - movedx 10y ago
      Yep. We need to just skip all this JS and other web standards nonsense and skip straight to the writing Golang, Rust, C, whatever, that is delivered (as a binary) through the browser and into a nice little sandbox that exposes system level APIs (notification, temp file storage - everything we can already kinda do in JA now) so we can get on with a faster, better web. (Kind of makes me think we have this now: Docker/containers. Hmm... hit an HTTPS endpoint and a Docker container is downloaded and the application is launched...)
- frozenport 10y ago
  But C++ GUI toolkits are disaster. While any kid can put together a reasonable looking JS app, the default options in toolkits like Qt are junk. Common features like centering a QComboBox aren't there. Quickly, you're going to have to custom build every widget. Then you need to hire engineers to manually press all the buttons. These engineers won't be too good at art stuff, so guess what, now you need to hire graphic designers - many of whom aren't familiar with Qt. You're best bet is to pay a consulting company tons of money to make a GUI, which you will struggle to keep updated. Even with unlimited cash, the lead time for this is unjustifiable. Do customers really want to trade performance for actual money? Are people still browsing the fatweb?
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    > Common features like centering a QComboBox aren't there Well, browsers didn't have proper vertical centering for UI elements for ages, too. Not to mention it's between a PITA and impossible to do "simple" things like styling a file upload button (only works via pseudo CSS on Chrome) or cross-browser styling of a scrollbar (usually people tend to handroll JS stuff, which is expectedly slow and unintuitive). > You're best bet is to pay a consulting company tons of money to make a GUI, which you will struggle to keep updated. It's the same in the Web sphere, with the added difference of clients not simply accepting "you cannot style a file upload button/input element cross-browser-like", they will usually answer you something along "it's the Web and HTML5 after all!!!". You will always need specialized engineers, designers and UX designers for a well-working app, no matter if native or web. (But yes I agree with you that C++ GUI toolkits are a desaster, especially when cross-platform! And especially the build tooling coughs at autotools)
    - LeoNatan25 10y ago
      What saddens me is that instead of improving the web software development process with tried and tested methodologies, the inverse happened, and the web and its terrible software ecosystems and perpetrators are somehow seen as the "cool kids" of software development. When observer pattern is seen as the holy grail of modern web development, you know we are in trouble.
- pitaj 10y ago
  This isn't a JS issue. It's an optimization bug in the CSS rendering. Holy crap the superiority complex is just gushing out of you. Sometimes it's just incredible seeing how much shit "real programmers" will throw at the "fake programmers." The Electron platform is popular because it's easy to work with when building portable GUIs. It's especially easier for webdevs who use the same languages all the time. They can accessibly hack on the editor, create plugins, etc. Just like Java devs use Eclipse and IntelliJ, and C# devs use Visual Studio, and Obj-C / Swift devs use XCode. If it's so easy to build portable GUIs the "right way", why are Slack, WhatsApp, Google, game producers, hardware vendors, browsers, etc all using this technology? Also, I don't understand why you keep complaining about all of these Electron apps. Do you work on desktop GUIs yourself? Have you built GUIs that hook into mainly CLI programs like many of these Electron apps?

mschuster91 10y ago

But the JS ecosystem learns things! They implement tree shaking and other stuff to improve performance! Obviously real programmers learned all this decades ago - same for the "NoSQL" followers who after years of struggling with piles of cr.p finally (re)discover what a true ACID-capable database is... I'm just waiting for the JS world to rediscover threads and proper multitasking, but given the track record I don't expect that in the next decade. Seriously, the JS world is a hellhole of disasters, and many of them easily preventable if the people acting as "evangelists" actually had a bit of clue about what they're talking. And to top it off, a JS-only implementation will never be nearly as fast as well-written C or even C++ code, no matter how hard "evangelists" push it.

movedx 10y ago
You'll probably get down-voted for your choice of language, but I agree. I actually feel what's going to happen is the JS community will start implementing WebASM and other very low-level mechanism to improve the speed of slow software components and, given enough time, will eventually just have entire binary applications being delivered through the browser (automatically installed, without asking you.) We'll go from `yum install software-suite` to `https://www.software-suite.com/` https://www.software-suite.com/` and the results will be the same. We'll have gone full circle.
- corndoge 10y ago
  I agree with you. Actually I think that at this stage, the browser should be viewed as a sandbox that can fetch and execute arbitrary binaries; then we can finally get past all the hacks that Web tech (js/dom/html/css/templates) is using to approximate that and actually build it for that express purpose, which should lead to better security (since we aren't pretending about what's happening -- it's untrusted code execution) and a better UX overall.
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    I don't think the developers of any of the main browser's JS engines pretend they're not going to be executing hostile code. In fact I struggle to think of better embeddable software sandboxes than V8, SpiderMonkey, etc., especially now that they support WebAssembly.
    - movedx 10y ago
      Good point. These are smart people developing these sandboxes - they know what they're getting themselves, and their users, in for.
  - movedx 10y ago
    Yep. We need to just skip all this JS and other web standards nonsense and skip straight to the writing Golang, Rust, C, whatever, that is delivered (as a binary) through the browser and into a nice little sandbox that exposes system level APIs (notification, temp file storage - everything we can already kinda do in JA now) so we can get on with a faster, better web. (Kind of makes me think we have this now: Docker/containers. Hmm... hit an HTTPS endpoint and a Docker container is downloaded and the application is launched...)
frozenport 10y ago
But C++ GUI toolkits are disaster. While any kid can put together a reasonable looking JS app, the default options in toolkits like Qt are junk. Common features like centering a QComboBox aren't there. Quickly, you're going to have to custom build every widget. Then you need to hire engineers to manually press all the buttons. These engineers won't be too good at art stuff, so guess what, now you need to hire graphic designers - many of whom aren't familiar with Qt. You're best bet is to pay a consulting company tons of money to make a GUI, which you will struggle to keep updated. Even with unlimited cash, the lead time for this is unjustifiable. Do customers really want to trade performance for actual money? Are people still browsing the fatweb?
- mschuster91 10y ago
  > Common features like centering a QComboBox aren't there Well, browsers didn't have proper vertical centering for UI elements for ages, too. Not to mention it's between a PITA and impossible to do "simple" things like styling a file upload button (only works via pseudo CSS on Chrome) or cross-browser styling of a scrollbar (usually people tend to handroll JS stuff, which is expectedly slow and unintuitive). > You're best bet is to pay a consulting company tons of money to make a GUI, which you will struggle to keep updated. It's the same in the Web sphere, with the added difference of clients not simply accepting "you cannot style a file upload button/input element cross-browser-like", they will usually answer you something along "it's the Web and HTML5 after all!!!". You will always need specialized engineers, designers and UX designers for a well-working app, no matter if native or web. (But yes I agree with you that C++ GUI toolkits are a desaster, especially when cross-platform! And especially the build tooling coughs at autotools)
  - LeoNatan25 10y ago
    What saddens me is that instead of improving the web software development process with tried and tested methodologies, the inverse happened, and the web and its terrible software ecosystems and perpetrators are somehow seen as the "cool kids" of software development. When observer pattern is seen as the holy grail of modern web development, you know we are in trouble.
pitaj 10y ago
This isn't a JS issue. It's an optimization bug in the CSS rendering. Holy crap the superiority complex is just gushing out of you. Sometimes it's just incredible seeing how much shit "real programmers" will throw at the "fake programmers." The Electron platform is popular because it's easy to work with when building portable GUIs. It's especially easier for webdevs who use the same languages all the time. They can accessibly hack on the editor, create plugins, etc. Just like Java devs use Eclipse and IntelliJ, and C# devs use Visual Studio, and Obj-C / Swift devs use XCode. If it's so easy to build portable GUIs the "right way", why are Slack, WhatsApp, Google, game producers, hardware vendors, browsers, etc all using this technology? Also, I don't understand why you keep complaining about all of these Electron apps. Do you work on desktop GUIs yourself? Have you built GUIs that hook into mainly CLI programs like many of these Electron apps?