6 ms·
I've played around with both node-webkit and atom-shell, and I prefer atom-shell over node-webkit, due to some minor inconveniences with node-webkit. * When an
by echoless 12y ago
I've played around with both node-webkit and atom-shell, and I prefer atom-shell over node-webkit, due to some minor inconveniences with node-webkit.
* When an error occurs in node-webkit, it loads an error page instead of simply logging it to the console like normal web pages. Even after fixing the error and hitting reload or navigating back, the page doesn't go away. You need to manually enter the url(copy/paste doesn't work).
* I don't know if this is something that was my fault or the app's, but when I made a call to a sqlite3 database using the node-pure-sqlite3 gem, it would take around 3 seconds to execute. With atom-shell it would take less than a second.
* The developer console is a separate window from the application in node-webkit. I prefer having a single window hold both the app and dev console during development(which atom shell-allows).
- ep103 12y agocompletely clueless programmer checking in. How is atom's performance? The one app I tried that used it was always slow and cludgy...
- echoless 12y agoFor DOM performance, they are pretty much identical. Both use Chrome(each uses a different version though, usually atom-shell uses more recent versions). For performance of node.js calls, I haven't run any benchmarks, so I cannot help you there. However subjectively, both felt about the same to me(except in the node-sqlite-purejs case).