Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

zeit.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 231 posts

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#121

Post by sesteel »

todd8 wrote: post #117
sime2009 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that your language choice is very limited. You can choose C++, no thanks, or Python which is very slow. There are no good options for languages or VMs on Qt in the Java/C#/VM/Jit range of the language performance spectrum.

I haven’t tried it, but isn’t JavaFX supposed to be the future of JVM based GUI’s? I’m actually very curious about others experiences with it.

I just went through a simple exercise; for my tests, a minimal JavaFX app starts at ~100MB while a minimal Electron app starts around ~65MB.

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#122

Post by ihuman »

stephenr wrote: post #13

Pop quiz: what's more ridiculous, nodejs based command line utilities that do the same thing as two existing shell utilities and a pipe or a while loop etc; OR, an electron "shell"... which can then run those same nodejs "utilities"... Oh maybe that's the whole point. They want "it's javascript all the way down". I think I'd literally rather use a shell built on actual turtles. A turtle-shell, if you will.

If you want an aquatic shell, there's always fish

https://fishshell.com/

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#123

Post by Buttons840 »

sakuronto wrote: post #41
drinchev wrote: post #38

Wow so much hate in this thread. First, the author is not doing this for his CV. Second, the benefits of using electron are enormous for any JS developer and there are a lot. Third, I also hate electron apps and wouldn’t use this app, but I’m not going to jump back to “why electron is bad” discussion, since I can’t suggest anything better in 2018.

What about good ol' QT?

Both QT and GTK have more restrictive licensing, which is fair on its own, but when comparing to Electron you have to consider it a disadvantage.

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#124

Post by solarkraft »

drinchev wrote: post #50
sakuronto wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about good ol' QT?

Last time I checked the bindings of QT[1] for NodeJS were not updated since 6 years. I think they are still unmaintained and also are lacking the community around it. I think GitHub embracing Chrome-wrapped-apps was a significant move, since no other company did something similar for desktop javascript applications. Maybe we will need to wait a bit more, until some of the big tech companies realises that having bette…

But why would I want to use Node JS?

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#125

Post by SnowingXIV »

My gripe was always having a terminal not blend in with the editor which makes this nice but vscode essentially does that out of the box for me. Now if I ever need the terminal and I'm not looking to code anything, I just use the native terminal. I can see why some people might like this if they are using sublime, atom, etc other editors that don't have terminal included but that was the only void this somewhat filed. (And yes, you can edit up the native terminal but you still get a different looking top bar).

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#126

Post by sli »

yzmtf2008 wrote: post #100
sime2009 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don't. JS running on a modern engine like V8 are easily 10x faster than CPython which PyQt uses. If you think Python and JS are about the same speed then it is because of Qt itself, but certainly not because of CPython.

> JS running on a modern engine like V8 are easily 10x faster than CPython which PyQt uses. Citation needed. As I've said numerous times before, saying one language is faster than another is pointless . You have to give a full context around it. What particular scenario is CPython slower than V8? While it's true that a pure CPython tight loop will be slower than one in V8, I have a hard time imagining that being the…

> As I've said numerous times before, saying one language is faster than another is pointless.

Never thought about it this way but you're right. I could very well write an interpreter for C that's slow as molasses and I'd be willing to be that no one will try it and say "C is slow."

It doesn't seem like languages that are already interpreted get that courtesy, though. V8 isn't the only JS engine, after all.

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#128

Post by olzd »

sesteel wrote: post #121
todd8 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t tried it, but isn’t JavaFX supposed to be the future of JVM based GUI’s? I’m actually very curious about others experiences with it.

I just went through a simple exercise; for my tests, a minimal JavaFX app starts at ~100MB while a minimal Electron app starts around ~65MB.

So? If you want a lightweight app, both JavaFX and Electron are bad.

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#129

Post by dspillett »

rhodysurf wrote: post #103
drinchev wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked the bindings of QT[1] for NodeJS were not updated since 6 years. I think they are still unmaintained and also are lacking the community around it. I think GitHub embracing Chrome-wrapped-apps was a significant move, since no other company did something similar for desktop javascript applications. Maybe we will need to wait a bit more, until some of the big tech companies realises that having bette…

Then learn a new language? It shouldn’t be that hard to transition between languages for UI stacks

> Then learn a new language?

Learn a new language (Python/C++/other) in order to learn and use a different framework (Qt)? Thanks for your advice I'll down tools right now and get on with that using my time the way I want to.

(Actually I've never developed anything using Electron yet, though some personal projects may get implemented that way in future should they ever get off the ground)

I fully understand much of the criticism of Electron and similar: the results are rather bulky in terms of both package size and memory use (and if you aren't careful sometimes CPU use) which can add up to quite a performance hit if running a number of small apps/tools that are large because of the framework. For interactive (or script-called) non-resident utilities startup time can be a significant issue too.

But there are a lot of entitled people out there who seem to be of a mind that because they don't like Electron (for those reasons or whatever else) they have the right to demand that developers stop using it. If you don't want to use an Electron driven application then the solution is to not use that Electron driven application. There are no doubt alternatives out there. If not then the deep knowledge you have that makes you an expert on why it would be better developed other ways should allow you to write your own and compete.

This is true for both paid-for services like this (show them who is boss by collectively voting with your wallets) and free and/or open source options (in which case making demands of the creator/maintainer seems even more egregious IMO).

Re: Hyper 2, Electron based terminal

#130

Post by Aaronmacaron »

sesteel wrote: post #121
todd8 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t tried it, but isn’t JavaFX supposed to be the future of JVM based GUI’s? I’m actually very curious about others experiences with it.

I just went through a simple exercise; for my tests, a minimal JavaFX app starts at ~100MB while a minimal Electron app starts around ~65MB.

This is only the case if you bundle the JVM with your application. Without the JVM you can write a simple application without exceeding the .jar file size of 1 MB.
Post reply on HN