3 ms·

I disagree. Web technologies are highly optimised for what they do (i.e text field uses 0% of CPU), run compiled code on all platforms and don't waste resources

I disagree. Web technologies are highly optimised for what they do (i.e text field uses 0% of CPU), run compiled code on all platforms and don't waste resources on chasing this unachievable and pointless native fetish. I don't understand your position. You're saying (correctly I think) that most users don't care about native. But then you turn around and choose an immature technology that spends a significant share of its budget on trying and failing to imitate native. The bug I cited betrays the priorities of the project. They chose to prioritise chasing "native" over fixing a critical bug for many years. Also, look at the large amount of investment going into web technologies - WebAssembly, WebGPU and many others. Even much criticised Apple is putting in a lot of work. I don't think the completely isolated Flutter/Dart team will ever be able to compete.

satvikpendem 3y ago
And how are those web technologies going for the bloat of Electron? There is no free lunch. Flutter binaries and runtime are orders of magnitude smaller and faster than web technologies. True, they shouldn't be chasing native, but it's still better than what we have currently with trying to cover 6 OS with web technologies.
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  Not sure why you keep harping on Electron. It's not even available on mobile and choosing to distribute an entire browser engine with every single app is not the same thing as choosing web technologies in general. The Dart runtime isn't any faster than V8 either.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    My point is that web technologies are quite poor for building multi-platform apps, something which Flutter excels at, even as it has its own issues. I consider those a worthwhile trade-off. I don't understand the points you're making, first you talk about battery drain, fair, then you talk about native, but it seems like you're missing the fundamental benefit of why some devs choose Flutter, which is that it works everywhere you need it to, and fairly fast, too. People use Electron for this generally, so that is why I brought it up, and I am saying that Flutter is a better alternative to Electron and other web technologies, and I am not sure exactly what you mean by web technologies, but I colloquially understand that to mean HTML, CSS, and Javascript. They are good at things like text rendering at 0% CPU precisely because they've been honed over decades, something which Flutter has not yet been able to. The compiled code from Dart is faster than V8, even simply by virtue of being AOT compiled instead of JITed, not sure where you saw that it wasn't any faster. Also, web technologies do not run compiled code on every platform, they don't run compiled code on any platform, I'm also unsure of where you're making that claim from, unless you're talking about WASM which is still a ways away, and something that Flutter leverages too already (see their work on pushing WASM GC as well as their experimental build of Flutter Web with WASM GC), so it's not unique to web technologies like HTML, CSS, and Javascript.
    - iudqnolq 3y ago
      It's incorrect to say AOT is always faster than JIT (without profile guided optimization). And it's reasonable to call jit-eligible code sometimes compiled.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        That is true, I (and the parent) should not have made claims either way about their respective speeds without thorough benchmarks.
      - zigzag312 3y ago
        Client apps are most of the time not long running processes where JIT could reach steady state performance and startup time is important. So in practical terms, AOT is faster than JIT majority of time in this use case. Also, look at this benchmark where native image PGO is now outperforming JIT in peak throughput: https://medium.com/graalvm/graalvm-for-jdk-21-is-here-ee01177dd12d https://medium.com/graalvm/graalvm-for-jdk-21-is-here-ee0117...
    - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
      >My point is that web technologies are quite poor for building multi-platform apps, something which Flutter excels at, even as it has its own issues. I consider those a worthwhile trade-off. I have come to the exact opposite conclusion starting out with an open mind just like you. Flutter seems like a quixotic effort to me. Bugs like the one I linked to are a confirmation of that. >Also, web technologies do not run compiled code on every platform, they don't run compiled code on any platform, I'm also unsure of where you're making that claim from. JIT compiles to native code. WebAssembly is another option. >not sure where you saw that it wasn't any faster https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/dart-vs-javascript https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/dart-vs-j...
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        How would you make cross platform apps using web technologies, including mobile, desktop and of course web? I've tried a lot of web-based frameworks like Capacitor, Ionic, Cordova and even React Native (which isn't necessarily web tech as it's just a DSL to call out to native components), and I haven't really been impressed with either the performance or UX of any of them. They all feel (except RN) like you're using a website, not a native app, which is because that's basically what you're doing. Thanks for the benchmarks, seems they're about even.

satvikpendem 3y ago

And how are those web technologies going for the bloat of Electron? There is no free lunch. Flutter binaries and runtime are orders of magnitude smaller and faster than web technologies. True, they shouldn't be chasing native, but it's still better than what we have currently with trying to cover 6 OS with web technologies.

fauigerzigerk 3y ago
Not sure why you keep harping on Electron. It's not even available on mobile and choosing to distribute an entire browser engine with every single app is not the same thing as choosing web technologies in general. The Dart runtime isn't any faster than V8 either.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  My point is that web technologies are quite poor for building multi-platform apps, something which Flutter excels at, even as it has its own issues. I consider those a worthwhile trade-off. I don't understand the points you're making, first you talk about battery drain, fair, then you talk about native, but it seems like you're missing the fundamental benefit of why some devs choose Flutter, which is that it works everywhere you need it to, and fairly fast, too. People use Electron for this generally, so that is why I brought it up, and I am saying that Flutter is a better alternative to Electron and other web technologies, and I am not sure exactly what you mean by web technologies, but I colloquially understand that to mean HTML, CSS, and Javascript. They are good at things like text rendering at 0% CPU precisely because they've been honed over decades, something which Flutter has not yet been able to. The compiled code from Dart is faster than V8, even simply by virtue of being AOT compiled instead of JITed, not sure where you saw that it wasn't any faster. Also, web technologies do not run compiled code on every platform, they don't run compiled code on any platform, I'm also unsure of where you're making that claim from, unless you're talking about WASM which is still a ways away, and something that Flutter leverages too already (see their work on pushing WASM GC as well as their experimental build of Flutter Web with WASM GC), so it's not unique to web technologies like HTML, CSS, and Javascript.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    It's incorrect to say AOT is always faster than JIT (without profile guided optimization). And it's reasonable to call jit-eligible code sometimes compiled.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      That is true, I (and the parent) should not have made claims either way about their respective speeds without thorough benchmarks.
    - zigzag312 3y ago
      Client apps are most of the time not long running processes where JIT could reach steady state performance and startup time is important. So in practical terms, AOT is faster than JIT majority of time in this use case. Also, look at this benchmark where native image PGO is now outperforming JIT in peak throughput: https://medium.com/graalvm/graalvm-for-jdk-21-is-here-ee01177dd12d https://medium.com/graalvm/graalvm-for-jdk-21-is-here-ee0117...
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    >My point is that web technologies are quite poor for building multi-platform apps, something which Flutter excels at, even as it has its own issues. I consider those a worthwhile trade-off. I have come to the exact opposite conclusion starting out with an open mind just like you. Flutter seems like a quixotic effort to me. Bugs like the one I linked to are a confirmation of that. >Also, web technologies do not run compiled code on every platform, they don't run compiled code on any platform, I'm also unsure of where you're making that claim from. JIT compiles to native code. WebAssembly is another option. >not sure where you saw that it wasn't any faster https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/dart-vs-javascript https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/dart-vs-j...
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      How would you make cross platform apps using web technologies, including mobile, desktop and of course web? I've tried a lot of web-based frameworks like Capacitor, Ionic, Cordova and even React Native (which isn't necessarily web tech as it's just a DSL to call out to native components), and I haven't really been impressed with either the performance or UX of any of them. They all feel (except RN) like you're using a website, not a native app, which is because that's basically what you're doing. Thanks for the benchmarks, seems they're about even.