4 ms·

> VSCode are written in JS and they have no performance issues VSCode is not performant, especially on startup and especially when compared to editors like vim

by jamil7 6y ago

> VSCode are written in JS and they have no performance issues VSCode is not performant, especially on startup and especially when compared to editors like vim or sublime text. I agree that the reason likely isn't language choice though it's the use of electron. I don't agree with you about software not needing to be performant either, I believe developers should strive to make their software run as efficiently as they can.

pizza234 6y ago
> I believe developers should strive to make their software run as efficiently as they can. This is not realistic. Performance doesn't just happen. Within limited constraints, focusing on performance will necessarily imply less feature. Ultimately, it's about balance. Personally I find VSC's performance to be good, and at lot of other devs find it at least good enough (it's a widespread editor). I've actually switched away from ST3 because the development of their current version stagnated, and there are unresolved bugs and limitations that affected my everyday usage. In other words, the performance/features (and let's throw flexibility) balance of VSC is, for me, better than ST's (others may have have different requirements and different balances, of course). Ultimately, VSC is a bad example of tradeoff performance/ease of (internal) development. If people wants to find an example, Slack is by far the best (worst).
- csb6 6y ago
  > This is not realistic. Performance doesn't just happen. Within limited constraints, focusing on performance will necessarily imply less feature. I don’t think this has to be the case. I’ve found that it’s not really that much harder to develop in a language like C++ compared to JS. You can develop the same feature set using better tools and end up with a more performant product (plus you get a typechecker). Performance is a feature, and if you use good tools and a language that enables efficiency without much effort, it doesn’t have to be a fixed cost added on to development. Writing similar imperative code in C++ as you would in JS with no effort spent on optimizing is almost guaranteed to be much, much more efficient. I guess my point is that to some extent performance vs. more features is a false dichotomy.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  > Personally I find VSC's performance to be good, and at lot of other devs find it at least good enough (it's a widespread editor). That's a part of the problem. We're so used to web apps that many of us just learned to live with constant delays and simply treat it as a part of our lives.
  - jamil7 6y ago
    Thing is, I'm not advocating for performance over functionality or premature optimisation. We're talking about text editors here, as an industry we've done this before, we can write a fast cross-platform text editor, it feels like we've either forgotten this or don't care.
8note 6y ago
The thing that matters when engineering a solution using software is meeting the specifications. There's no real reason to look at the efficiency when it's not affecting whether you meet the specification. But that's a difference between developers and engineers

by jamil7 6y ago

pizza234 6y ago

> I believe developers should strive to make their software run as efficiently as they can. This is not realistic. Performance doesn't just happen. Within limited constraints, focusing on performance will necessarily imply less feature. Ultimately, it's about balance. Personally I find VSC's performance to be good, and at lot of other devs find it at least good enough (it's a widespread editor). I've actually switched away from ST3 because the development of their current version stagnated, and there are unresolved bugs and limitations that affected my everyday usage. In other words, the performance/features (and let's throw flexibility) balance of VSC is, for me, better than ST's (others may have have different requirements and different balances, of course). Ultimately, VSC is a bad example of tradeoff performance/ease of (internal) development. If people wants to find an example, Slack is by far the best (worst).

csb6 6y ago
> This is not realistic. Performance doesn't just happen. Within limited constraints, focusing on performance will necessarily imply less feature. I don’t think this has to be the case. I’ve found that it’s not really that much harder to develop in a language like C++ compared to JS. You can develop the same feature set using better tools and end up with a more performant product (plus you get a typechecker). Performance is a feature, and if you use good tools and a language that enables efficiency without much effort, it doesn’t have to be a fixed cost added on to development. Writing similar imperative code in C++ as you would in JS with no effort spent on optimizing is almost guaranteed to be much, much more efficient. I guess my point is that to some extent performance vs. more features is a false dichotomy.
dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
> Personally I find VSC's performance to be good, and at lot of other devs find it at least good enough (it's a widespread editor). That's a part of the problem. We're so used to web apps that many of us just learned to live with constant delays and simply treat it as a part of our lives.
- jamil7 6y ago
  Thing is, I'm not advocating for performance over functionality or premature optimisation. We're talking about text editors here, as an industry we've done this before, we can write a fast cross-platform text editor, it feels like we've either forgotten this or don't care.

8note 6y ago

The thing that matters when engineering a solution using software is meeting the specifications. There's no real reason to look at the efficiency when it's not affecting whether you meet the specification. But that's a difference between developers and engineers