4 ms·

Pretty cool, but damn is it slow. Takes about 25% of GPU and CPU here. One could argue, it doesn't need to be faster, after all it is just an experiment. But I

Pretty cool, but damn is it slow. Takes about 25% of GPU and CPU here. One could argue, it doesn't need to be faster, after all it is just an experiment. But I say, what if it were faster? Would we look at the same thing? Or rather, would he / she have added more features, maybe drawing on the map, planning trips or additional heat maps? Maybe some gamification? Oh the possibility! But no, because its JS it's the end of the road. We have to remind ourselves, that performance is the number one feature of Computing. If you sacrifice performance for easier development, you are working in the past.

spoonjim 4y ago
This is a free website. How would you make it worth the author’s while to spend more effort to make it more performant?
- noisem4ker 4y ago
  It's not about the author, who did well with what was available. The point is that they deserved to build on better fundamentals than JS. We, as a collective, need to recognize and periodically remind ourselves of the burden we're inflicting ourselves and potential newcomers by considering JS good enough (including the billions that have been sunk in the attempt to make it acceptably performant for normal website needs). JS often gets praised for enabling quick development (quite wrongfully, being that mostly the merit of quick interface building granted by HTML and CSS) but rarely we stop and consider what we're giving up by limiting ourselves to such a crappy language and accompanying library stack.
sofixa 4y ago
> We have to remind ourselves, that performance is the number one feature of Computing No. Utility and usability are the top features in computing. Performance is very important, but if you have the fastest website/app out there that doesn't do anything or it does it so bad nobody can use it, it's useless. As you can see, people can tolerate slower performance for utility and usability.
- noisem4ker 4y ago
  On a larger scale, performance dictates what you can have /at all/. If all we had was JS, we e.g. would not have machine learning, because that would be impractically slow and ultimately unviable.
willyt 4y ago
It’s close to instantaneous on an iPhone SE?

spoonjim 4y ago

This is a free website. How would you make it worth the author’s while to spend more effort to make it more performant?

noisem4ker 4y ago
It's not about the author, who did well with what was available. The point is that they deserved to build on better fundamentals than JS. We, as a collective, need to recognize and periodically remind ourselves of the burden we're inflicting ourselves and potential newcomers by considering JS good enough (including the billions that have been sunk in the attempt to make it acceptably performant for normal website needs). JS often gets praised for enabling quick development (quite wrongfully, being that mostly the merit of quick interface building granted by HTML and CSS) but rarely we stop and consider what we're giving up by limiting ourselves to such a crappy language and accompanying library stack.

sofixa 4y ago

> We have to remind ourselves, that performance is the number one feature of Computing No. Utility and usability are the top features in computing. Performance is very important, but if you have the fastest website/app out there that doesn't do anything or it does it so bad nobody can use it, it's useless. As you can see, people can tolerate slower performance for utility and usability.

noisem4ker 4y ago
On a larger scale, performance dictates what you can have /at all/. If all we had was JS, we e.g. would not have machine learning, because that would be impractically slow and ultimately unviable.

willyt 4y ago

It’s close to instantaneous on an iPhone SE?