3 ms·
You misunderstood. I meant browsers built with something like QT or .NET - another other than HTML and JS. See Atom's performance for why it's a bad idea to use
by sergiotapia 11y ago
You misunderstood. I meant browsers built with something like QT or .NET - another other than HTML and JS. See Atom's performance for why it's a bad idea to use web technologies for something that needs performance.
- lewisl9029 11y agoI've rewrote so many similar replies that I think I'll just copy and paste from now on. See here for more context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9813873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9813873 > See Atom's performance for why it's a bad idea to use web technologies for something that needs performance. This sentiment, that Atom is not performant because it's built on web technologies, gets repeated a lot, but it's provably false. Light Table and VS Code both use the exact same HTML/CSS/JS stack on top of Electron. Both are much more performant than Atom. Whatever performance issues plaguing Atom are more likely caused by flawed architecture and/or lack of optimization. The underlying web technologies it's built on have been demonstrated to be capable of delivering highly performant text editors.
- NeutronBoy 11y agoPart of the reason is that once you write it in QT or .NET, performance might cease to be an issue, but now you have significant issues with platform compatibility and ease of porting.