9 ms·

No, this is definitely not running at desktop speeds. I have a Ryzen 7 2700, and this thing lags often even with basic UI operations (clicking buttons and menus

No, this is definitely not running at desktop speeds. I have a Ryzen 7 2700, and this thing lags often even with basic UI operations (clicking buttons and menus, dragging objects). Now imagine someone with a dual-core laptop CPU... this will be even worse. It certainly feels like this is a web app rather than a native one.

jeffreportmill1 8y ago
I get desktop speed for Chrome, Safari, but FireFox does lag for me. The first run does load various UI files on demand, but once cached, most delays go away.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Yeah, what's up with that? I use Firefox a lot, and I've noticed it always has poor performance on heavy JS apps. The off time I need one of such apps is the only reason I keep Chrome installed on my system.
  - 93s6oz 8y ago
    Firefox has worse performance than Chrome overall, despite what their synthetic benchmarks might say.
    - ionised 8y ago
      How are you measuring 'overall'?
      - 93s6oz 8y ago
        I am not measuring it, that's the point. Synthetic benchmarks are useless when real life experience shows the opposite.
        xori 8y ago
        As an enlightened individual as I'm sure you are, we strive to remove personal bias when possible. This includes measuring statistics. Which can take the form of synthetic benchmarks, but also real life tests, like page load times of notoriously bad news sites, or heavy cpu bound tasks like image resizing in the browser.
        ionised 8y ago
        If you're not measuring it then it's pretty much subjective, no? You can't quantify what you don't measure. I don't know how you use Firefox and Chrome (I use both in work) but they behave pretty much identically as far as I can tell, once ads and other crap have been blocked. The only difference is Chrome is snappier on Google sites and seems to use double the memory to open the same tabs.
    - vardump 8y ago
      That probably has nothing to do that everyone is now optimizing for Chrome.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I've noticed that too. I think it might be that these days "idiomatic high-performance JS" might just be another way of saying "makes use of Chrome's quirks, strengths and optimizations". I imagine there's some things Firefox just can't do quite as fast as Chrome because of design decisions. The reverse probably also holds true, but that doesn't help as much if you aren't the market leader.
    - fastball 8y ago
      Chrome's JS engine is optimized for real-word usage. FF's is not.
      - Yoric 8y ago
        As a member of the Mozilla JS team, let me tell you that we're working on optimizing our engine for real-world usage all the time. Some optimizations are better in SpiderMonkey than in v8, some are worse. Unfortunately, whenever a web developer optimizes solely for v8/Chrome, this hurts Firefox.
        Klathmon 8y ago
        This might be a lot to ask of a random internet comment, but is there anything common you tend to see in apps that make them look/feel overtuned to v8? I'll freely admit that i'm guilty of the "develop for chrome, test in firefox" kind of workflow, and I really want to improve on that. I feel like I have built up a kind of "intuition" about what works well and what doesn't over the years in chrome, and i'd like to start building that up for other browsers.
        mi100hael 8y ago
        I'd guess a lot of that sort of optimization happens at the framework/library level (React, Emscripten, etc) and less so in your typical application code.
        fastball 8y ago
        I have never once "optimized solely for V8" (I honestly have no idea what runs better in Chrome vs. Firefox). All I know is that I build an app as I think makes sense logically, and 100% of the time it runs faster / less hot in Chrome. JS-heavy apps burn thru CPU cycles far more on FF than in Chrome. I want to use FF as my daily driver, I really do. But it's real-world performance just doesn't cut it for me, and I don't think you can blame that on people "solely optimizing for Chrome", as V8 was a better engine at the moment of release, when nobody had had a chance to optimize for it.
dziulius 8y ago
Well, it's written in Java, so desktop app probably lags as much. So title does not lie :D
- jeffreportmill1 8y ago
  Now that hurts :-). Java has been pretty amazing for many years. Many Java desktop apps ran poorly because they were written poorly. I used to give demos of the Swing version of this app 15 years ago, and people would try to convince me that my app was written in C, because a Java app can't run that fast. Those were weird conversations. I'm not even that clever - I just try to write simple code.
  - ixtli 8y ago
    This is my experience with java > 7. The JVM with default settings is pretty excellent these days (see JetBrains IDEs: they're MASSIVE but they run just as well as any other native desktop app.) The issue as far as i see it is that the "enterprise" way of thinking that has and still does dominate the majority of development that results in java code is so bad that it starts to seem like its the language/runtime.
    - garaetjjte 8y ago
      >they're MASSIVE but they run just as well as any other native desktop app Not for me. They're starting up long, UI is laggy. In comprasion to native IDE like Qt Creator they're really slow.
  - Yoric 8y ago
    I used to write apps with Swing nearly 20 years ago (before javax), and making even simple apps perform without tearing and atrocious performance was really, really hard. Fortunately, CPUs have caught up with Java, eventually :)
- ww520 8y ago
  In my experience Java beats most languages out there in the speed department.
dosy 8y ago
I'm running on a surface. Seems fine.
BoorishBears 8y ago
It runs at native speed on my iPhone. Sounds like your browser has an issue...
- macspoofing 8y ago
  No. Not quite. Framerate for me oscillates between 12-30fps (2018 XPS 15 laptop). It's quite usable but not 'desktop speed'.
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    What browser?

jeffreportmill1 8y ago

I get desktop speed for Chrome, Safari, but FireFox does lag for me. The first run does load various UI files on demand, but once cached, most delays go away.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Yeah, what's up with that? I use Firefox a lot, and I've noticed it always has poor performance on heavy JS apps. The off time I need one of such apps is the only reason I keep Chrome installed on my system.
- 93s6oz 8y ago
  Firefox has worse performance than Chrome overall, despite what their synthetic benchmarks might say.
  - ionised 8y ago
    How are you measuring 'overall'?
    - 93s6oz 8y ago
      I am not measuring it, that's the point. Synthetic benchmarks are useless when real life experience shows the opposite.
      - xori 8y ago
        As an enlightened individual as I'm sure you are, we strive to remove personal bias when possible. This includes measuring statistics. Which can take the form of synthetic benchmarks, but also real life tests, like page load times of notoriously bad news sites, or heavy cpu bound tasks like image resizing in the browser.
      - ionised 8y ago
        If you're not measuring it then it's pretty much subjective, no? You can't quantify what you don't measure. I don't know how you use Firefox and Chrome (I use both in work) but they behave pretty much identically as far as I can tell, once ads and other crap have been blocked. The only difference is Chrome is snappier on Google sites and seems to use double the memory to open the same tabs.
  - vardump 8y ago
    That probably has nothing to do that everyone is now optimizing for Chrome.
- kbenson 8y ago
  I've noticed that too. I think it might be that these days "idiomatic high-performance JS" might just be another way of saying "makes use of Chrome's quirks, strengths and optimizations". I imagine there's some things Firefox just can't do quite as fast as Chrome because of design decisions. The reverse probably also holds true, but that doesn't help as much if you aren't the market leader.
  - fastball 8y ago
    Chrome's JS engine is optimized for real-word usage. FF's is not.
    - Yoric 8y ago
      As a member of the Mozilla JS team, let me tell you that we're working on optimizing our engine for real-world usage all the time. Some optimizations are better in SpiderMonkey than in v8, some are worse. Unfortunately, whenever a web developer optimizes solely for v8/Chrome, this hurts Firefox.
      - Klathmon 8y ago
        This might be a lot to ask of a random internet comment, but is there anything common you tend to see in apps that make them look/feel overtuned to v8? I'll freely admit that i'm guilty of the "develop for chrome, test in firefox" kind of workflow, and I really want to improve on that. I feel like I have built up a kind of "intuition" about what works well and what doesn't over the years in chrome, and i'd like to start building that up for other browsers.
        mi100hael 8y ago
        I'd guess a lot of that sort of optimization happens at the framework/library level (React, Emscripten, etc) and less so in your typical application code.
      - fastball 8y ago
        I have never once "optimized solely for V8" (I honestly have no idea what runs better in Chrome vs. Firefox). All I know is that I build an app as I think makes sense logically, and 100% of the time it runs faster / less hot in Chrome. JS-heavy apps burn thru CPU cycles far more on FF than in Chrome. I want to use FF as my daily driver, I really do. But it's real-world performance just doesn't cut it for me, and I don't think you can blame that on people "solely optimizing for Chrome", as V8 was a better engine at the moment of release, when nobody had had a chance to optimize for it.

dziulius 8y ago

Well, it's written in Java, so desktop app probably lags as much. So title does not lie :D

jeffreportmill1 8y ago
Now that hurts :-). Java has been pretty amazing for many years. Many Java desktop apps ran poorly because they were written poorly. I used to give demos of the Swing version of this app 15 years ago, and people would try to convince me that my app was written in C, because a Java app can't run that fast. Those were weird conversations. I'm not even that clever - I just try to write simple code.
- ixtli 8y ago
  This is my experience with java > 7. The JVM with default settings is pretty excellent these days (see JetBrains IDEs: they're MASSIVE but they run just as well as any other native desktop app.) The issue as far as i see it is that the "enterprise" way of thinking that has and still does dominate the majority of development that results in java code is so bad that it starts to seem like its the language/runtime.
  - garaetjjte 8y ago
    >they're MASSIVE but they run just as well as any other native desktop app Not for me. They're starting up long, UI is laggy. In comprasion to native IDE like Qt Creator they're really slow.
- Yoric 8y ago
  I used to write apps with Swing nearly 20 years ago (before javax), and making even simple apps perform without tearing and atrocious performance was really, really hard. Fortunately, CPUs have caught up with Java, eventually :)
ww520 8y ago
In my experience Java beats most languages out there in the speed department.

dosy 8y ago

I'm running on a surface. Seems fine.

BoorishBears 8y ago

It runs at native speed on my iPhone. Sounds like your browser has an issue...

macspoofing 8y ago
No. Not quite. Framerate for me oscillates between 12-30fps (2018 XPS 15 laptop). It's quite usable but not 'desktop speed'.
- BoorishBears 8y ago
  What browser?