5 ms·

> There is none of the "spend 30 seconds watching a splash screen" that we're are accustomed to with advanced applications in Java and C++ (eg. PyCharm and Phot

> There is none of the "spend 30 seconds watching a splash screen" that we're are accustomed to with advanced applications in Java and C++ (eg. PyCharm and Photoshop) Are your applications of similar size and complexity as these Java and C++ applications? Photoshop is a huge beast. I ask because I’ve written C++ GUI applications that start up instantly (sub second). I’ve also written Python GUI applications that did not. It depends on what and how much you’re doing on startup. Most GUI applications aren’t as large as PyCharm or Photoshop and start up significantly faster, regardless of implementation language. > Later on I noticed that web browsers on Mac OS (Safari/Firefox/Chrome) seem to "go to lunch" and not respond to mouse clicks for 5 seconds every so often. I’ve not had this problem personally, but I have had Chrome lock up my entire system on Ubuntu (input including mouse clicks simply not doing anything, but if I happen to have another window open I can alt tab to that and then everything is good again, or at least I can kill Chrome).

PaulHoule 8y ago
I've made smaller apps with JavaFX which still take annoyingly long to start up compared w/ similar tkinter apps.
- dkersten 8y ago
  Java was once notoriously slow and still has slower JVM startup time than C++. Maybe JavaFX is slower. I’ve not written any GUI applications in java nor do I use many java applications. However, my experience with C++ has been very different: things can run and start very fast. If they don’t, it’s because either you did something very wrong or because it’s doing a lot of work that would be equally slow elsewhere. I’ve used Qt, WxWidgets, FLTK, GTK+ and a FOX as my GUI toolkit over the years and, for my small applications, all of those start so fast I don’t notice it. The only slowdown I’ve noticed is with Qt when using QtQuick (I assume because it has to load, parse and then execute QML — essentially JavaScript — as well as the C++ code). It’s still faster starting up than PyCharm and Photoshop for anything that I’ve used it for.
  - hyperman1 8y ago
    Ive always wondered why java starts so slow. A simple hello world takes a second or so. Most interpreted languages do a lot better. Once it has warmed up, it's close to C however.
    - kkarakk 8y ago
      >Once it has warmed up that's the problem, a lot of workflows even on really complex applns like photoshop are firing up a project for a couple of minutes to get some output or correct something. enough time is wasted warming up that people who can afford it just leave the applications running. i just keep whatever VS project i'm working on running for eg coz the startup times are painful and i have RAM to spare
      - bostik 8y ago
        Interestingly enough, since we have Qt mentioned in this thread... Somewhere between 4.8 and 5.1 (I can't remember exactly when), QtWebKit introduced a compile-time macro-assembler setup. This was used to generate a "first pass" product of the JIT engine output, to reduce the JavaScript engine warmup time.[ß] This was at a time when I had already wondered aloud, on several occasions, how long it would take for browser vendors to allow downloading precompiled JIT blobs for speeding up the most expensive parts of whatever they wanted their visitors to run. This never happened. The world hopped over the fledgling JS-AOT craze and came up with WebAssembly instead. ß: the construction also introduced Ruby as a build requirement, because of course the macro-assembler generation was done with Ruby.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      A simple hello world takes about 262ms on Windows 10 with Java 11. Which can be further reduced by making use of AOT compiler, or SubstrateVM. Additionally, Java always enjoyed the ability to AOT compile to native code, even though it was mostly available via third party commercial JDKs, or gcj for the adventurous ones.
  - bostik 8y ago
    Qt slows down when it processes [large] images. Anything you want to display on screen has to be processed to a QtPixmap structure. When I last used it, with sufficiently large textures and/or splash screen images, this operation could take long enough to cause the rendering thread to skip frames. (In an embedded x86 environment we were talking about some hundreds of milliseconds.) The other part where Qt can really slow down is when you have to instantiate a 3D driver module. That can block absolutely everything.
viraptor 8y ago
> Are your applications of similar size and complexity as these Java and C++ applications? Photoshop is a huge beast. It's not really the application size though. It's whether you load/initialise things eagerly at startup, or do you do it as needed/in the background. If you see a splash screen, you know it's the first option. The slash screen is visible and active after all - the app itself is loaded.

PaulHoule 8y ago

I've made smaller apps with JavaFX which still take annoyingly long to start up compared w/ similar tkinter apps.

dkersten 8y ago
Java was once notoriously slow and still has slower JVM startup time than C++. Maybe JavaFX is slower. I’ve not written any GUI applications in java nor do I use many java applications. However, my experience with C++ has been very different: things can run and start very fast. If they don’t, it’s because either you did something very wrong or because it’s doing a lot of work that would be equally slow elsewhere. I’ve used Qt, WxWidgets, FLTK, GTK+ and a FOX as my GUI toolkit over the years and, for my small applications, all of those start so fast I don’t notice it. The only slowdown I’ve noticed is with Qt when using QtQuick (I assume because it has to load, parse and then execute QML — essentially JavaScript — as well as the C++ code). It’s still faster starting up than PyCharm and Photoshop for anything that I’ve used it for.
- hyperman1 8y ago
  Ive always wondered why java starts so slow. A simple hello world takes a second or so. Most interpreted languages do a lot better. Once it has warmed up, it's close to C however.
  - kkarakk 8y ago
    >Once it has warmed up that's the problem, a lot of workflows even on really complex applns like photoshop are firing up a project for a couple of minutes to get some output or correct something. enough time is wasted warming up that people who can afford it just leave the applications running. i just keep whatever VS project i'm working on running for eg coz the startup times are painful and i have RAM to spare
    - bostik 8y ago
      Interestingly enough, since we have Qt mentioned in this thread... Somewhere between 4.8 and 5.1 (I can't remember exactly when), QtWebKit introduced a compile-time macro-assembler setup. This was used to generate a "first pass" product of the JIT engine output, to reduce the JavaScript engine warmup time.[ß] This was at a time when I had already wondered aloud, on several occasions, how long it would take for browser vendors to allow downloading precompiled JIT blobs for speeding up the most expensive parts of whatever they wanted their visitors to run. This never happened. The world hopped over the fledgling JS-AOT craze and came up with WebAssembly instead. ß: the construction also introduced Ruby as a build requirement, because of course the macro-assembler generation was done with Ruby.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    A simple hello world takes about 262ms on Windows 10 with Java 11. Which can be further reduced by making use of AOT compiler, or SubstrateVM. Additionally, Java always enjoyed the ability to AOT compile to native code, even though it was mostly available via third party commercial JDKs, or gcj for the adventurous ones.
- bostik 8y ago
  Qt slows down when it processes [large] images. Anything you want to display on screen has to be processed to a QtPixmap structure. When I last used it, with sufficiently large textures and/or splash screen images, this operation could take long enough to cause the rendering thread to skip frames. (In an embedded x86 environment we were talking about some hundreds of milliseconds.) The other part where Qt can really slow down is when you have to instantiate a 3D driver module. That can block absolutely everything.

viraptor 8y ago

> Are your applications of similar size and complexity as these Java and C++ applications? Photoshop is a huge beast. It's not really the application size though. It's whether you load/initialise things eagerly at startup, or do you do it as needed/in the background. If you see a splash screen, you know it's the first option. The slash screen is visible and active after all - the app itself is loaded.