8 ms·
Yes, and the difference is the maturity of the engine. For example, to execute JS files Sciter uses QuickJS which runs ~20-30x slower than V8 JIT [1] and has no
by e1g 4y ago
Yes, and the difference is the maturity of the engine. For example, to execute JS files Sciter uses QuickJS which runs ~20-30x slower than V8 JIT [1] and has no support for Intl [2]. Sciter's spin on HTML/CSS is also different [3], which might even be better than the standard DOM/CSS, but different means you're coding specifically against the internals of this packaging/distribution method.
[1] https://bellard.org/quickjs/bench.html https://bellard.org/quickjs/bench.html
[2] https://test262.report/?engines=v8%2Cqjs https://test262.report/?engines=v8%2Cqjs
[3] https://sciter.com/tutorial-learn-sciters-html-components-in-5-minutes/ https://sciter.com/tutorial-learn-sciters-html-components-in...
- tannhaeuser 4y ago> Sciter's spin on HTML/CSS is also different [3] Hmm, that was new to me and quite disappointing TBH. I thought the entire point of an embeddable web rendering component is to leverage existing "standards"/practices, especially CSS' out-of-this-world complexity. Why would anyone in normal mental health condition embrace HTML and CSS for coding apps if the result can't even be used in browsers? I had counted Sciter towards browser implementations; but now I see it does nothing to prevent our fall into a second medieval age once no-one understands the job-security machine that is CSS. What an utter piece of garbage CSS is, counter to the entire point of using markup.