3 ms·

> 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 limi

> 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.

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.