3 ms·

It is NOT significantly worse otherwise nobody would use it. But lots of apps do use it e.g. Linkedin, Facebook, Reeder, Google Search, iCab Mobile etc and it

It is NOT significantly worse otherwise nobody would use it. But lots of apps do use it e.g. Linkedin, Facebook, Reeder, Google Search, iCab Mobile etc and it is not noticeably worse.

trevrr 14y ago
Name dropping doesn't prove anything.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  When they directly contravene the point "Nobody uses them", it does.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - masklinn 14y ago
    Since when is non-sensical strawmanning considered a point? Taligent is the one who brought out the "nobody would use them" nonsense in order to take it down.
masklinn 14y ago
> It is NOT significantly worse It's a fourfold difference (~2200ms versus ~9100ms on three runs of each) on synthetic benchmarks (Sunspider 0.9.1 on an iPhone 4S running iOS 5.1.1, UIWebView was tested through Instapaper 4.2), which I would call significantly worse. > otherwise nobody would use it. Performance is not everything: they are convenient especially given iOS's debatable story for switching between applications (especially back and forth between an application and a web browser). > But lots of apps do use it e.g. Linkedin, Facebook, Reeder, Google Search, iCab Mobile etc and it is not noticeably worse. It's "not noticeable"[0] for JS-light websites because... well the JIT is for javascript code, running JS slower doesn't matter if there's no JS code. [0] it is most definitely noticeable, many sites — especially full-page non-mobile ones with ads shit — load significantly faster using Safari than using embedded UIWebView.
gurkendoktor 14y ago
I just downloaded Facebook from the German App Store today and spent some time reading the reviews. The app averages at 2 stars and most people complain specifically about terrible performance. I can confirm this on an iPad 1, FWIW. Hard numbers would be more interesting.

3 ms·

It is NOT significantly worse otherwise nobody would use it. But lots of apps do use it e.g. Linkedin, Facebook, Reeder, Google Search, iCab Mobile etc and it

by taligent 14y ago

It is NOT significantly worse otherwise nobody would use it. But lots of apps do use it e.g. Linkedin, Facebook, Reeder, Google Search, iCab Mobile etc and it is not noticeably worse.

trevrr 14y ago
Name dropping doesn't prove anything.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  When they directly contravene the point "Nobody uses them", it does.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - masklinn 14y ago
    Since when is non-sensical strawmanning considered a point? Taligent is the one who brought out the "nobody would use them" nonsense in order to take it down.
masklinn 14y ago
> It is NOT significantly worse It's a fourfold difference (~2200ms versus ~9100ms on three runs of each) on synthetic benchmarks (Sunspider 0.9.1 on an iPhone 4S running iOS 5.1.1, UIWebView was tested through Instapaper 4.2), which I would call significantly worse. > otherwise nobody would use it. Performance is not everything: they are convenient especially given iOS's debatable story for switching between applications (especially back and forth between an application and a web browser). > But lots of apps do use it e.g. Linkedin, Facebook, Reeder, Google Search, iCab Mobile etc and it is not noticeably worse. It's "not noticeable"[0] for JS-light websites because... well the JIT is for javascript code, running JS slower doesn't matter if there's no JS code. [0] it is most definitely noticeable, many sites — especially full-page non-mobile ones with ads shit — load significantly faster using Safari than using embedded UIWebView.
gurkendoktor 14y ago
I just downloaded Facebook from the German App Store today and spent some time reading the reviews. The app averages at 2 stars and most people complain specifically about terrible performance. I can confirm this on an iPad 1, FWIW. Hard numbers would be more interesting.