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

Why I Develop For The Mac

evanmiller.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#161

Post by cerales »

simonsarris wrote: post #99
drewcrawford wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's wrong in this case with the very good performance across many platforms (even tablets) of the SVG-backed RaphaelJS? So I attempted to determine the accuracy of this claim. I ran a benchmark from Kevin Roast [1] who seems to author a lot of Canvas demos. For each of the 8 tests in his benchmark, I recorded the FPS reading that I saw that was the lowest (e.g., framerate dropped to X at some point during the 5-…

In the sentence you quoted I'm referring to SVG, not canvas, and the "in this case" refers to mapping apps, not games. I never made any claims with regards to games. In the test you quoted the goal is to stress it until it could only handle 30fps (it says so on the page), so you necessarily must see 30fps for the test to go on to the next one. That is why your median score on the Mac is 29fps, because it degrades smo…

Can you recommend any resources for writing performant code for canvas / SVG?

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#162

Post by hornetblack »

freyrs3 wrote: post #28

> Try running a profiler on a native Mac application that does a fair amount of drawing. You'll see references to function calls like: sse64CGSFill8by1 Try running a disassembler on any compiled graphic applications of the last 10 years on any platform and you'll see SSE instructions.

I sure hope compilers haven't been twiddling their thumbs for the past decade.

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#163

Post by pjmlp »

Intermernet wrote: post #159
pjmlp wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This made me scratch my head. Desktop apps have been accommodating multiple screen and window sizes since before the Internet existed. Do you think we hard-code a separate layout for every window size? I think the problem is the youth of today doesn't know anything other than web development, so they are full of false assumptions.

Yeah, I personally have a giggle whenever i see a complaint about catering to multiple resolutions. I seem to remember devs having similar issues with desktop games (and apps) in the whole VGA -> SVGA -> XGA migration. (1987 to 1990 ish... My dates may be off). Were none of the lessons learned then applicable to mobile dev today?

What about the wonderful modes of Hercules, CGA and EGA? :)

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#164

Post by Narishma »

hornetblack wrote: post #162
freyrs3 wrote: post #28

> Try running a profiler on a native Mac application that does a fair amount of drawing. You'll see references to function calls like: sse64CGSFill8by1 Try running a disassembler on any compiled graphic applications of the last 10 years on any platform and you'll see SSE instructions.

I sure hope compilers haven't been twiddling their thumbs for the past decade.

You mean developers, right? Compiler auto-vectorization hasn't really advanced that much. You still need to manually use SIMD intrinsics (or inline asm) to get any kind of worthwhile performance increase.

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#165

Post by bitwize »

shmerl wrote: post #128
bitwize wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't mind your app looking like shit on all platforms, this is a viable strategy. A lot of specialist applications are like this: for example, I used to develop Qt-based GUI tools for robotics. If your app looking like shit will cost you significant sales -- as is the case for most productivity and design apps -- then yes, you have to port the GUI bits to each and every toolkit you're using .

Not true. Lot's of applications use generic abstractions and look good at the same time. Firefox, LibreOffice, VirtualBox and etc. If you don't know how to make good GUI using generic toolkits it doesn't mean it's not possible. Anyway, if you buy application for its "looks" - there is something seriously wrong already. It should look good, no doubt, but it should be functional first. >as is the case for most producti…

Nobody on Mac runs Firefox except to test with because it's so obviously non-native.

And I wouldn't describe LibreOffice as "not looking (and running) like shit". Again, nobody on Mac actually uses it, and Windows has the real Office.

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#166

Post by jfb »

Encosia wrote: post #82
kalms wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it would seem that Mac users tend to spend more money on software, than the general PC user. [citation probably needed, but whatevs]

That could only be true if you ignore software for business (even small and medium business, not just "enterprise").

Probably, but there's plenty of good money in selling software to humans.

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#167

Post by leephillips »

shmerl wrote: post #141
leephillips wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is Linux's native GUI API?

Linux doesn't dictate a native API for GUI. It de facto dictates the display server protocol though (currently being X11 and Wayland as the next generation). So any API would be built with that in mind. That said, most widely used APIs are Qt and GTK+.

That's what I thought. So I'm having trouble understanding how I would apply bitwize's iron rule.

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#168

Post by Shorel »

MarkMc wrote: post #153
pjmlp wrote: post #85

With each web project I take part on, I feel more and more in sync with what the author states. The proper way is to have desktop applications that take proper advantage of the hardware and operating system integration and use the network for communication. Leave the browser for the documents. No need for browser compatibility headaches or JavaScript/CSS/HTML hacks. Just use your favourite programming language and ta…

I'm surprised by this sentiment. I thought web apps had 'won' on the desktop? Is the pendulum starting to swing the other way?

I do both.

Debugging CSS is much less fun than using a proven multiplatform C++ toolkit. Only when node.js got popular I could write the ever reliable callbacks in my web code, while I use them all the time in C++.

But of course there are more people who can write web apps than people who can add this symbol at the end of the line -> ;

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#169

Post by dvhh »

I somehow feel that he misses the point, "web app" and "desktop class app" usually have very different purpose and goal. It almost sound like to me: fuck these gui app console app are way faster, and see how easy it is to run them on headless server.

Re: Why I Develop For The Mac

#170

Post by shmerl »

bitwize wrote: post #165
shmerl wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. Lot's of applications use generic abstractions and look good at the same time. Firefox, LibreOffice, VirtualBox and etc. If you don't know how to make good GUI using generic toolkits it doesn't mean it's not possible. Anyway, if you buy application for its "looks" - there is something seriously wrong already. It should look good, no doubt, but it should be functional first. >as is the case for most producti…

Nobody on Mac runs Firefox except to test with because it's so obviously non-native. And I wouldn't describe LibreOffice as "not looking (and running) like shit". Again, nobody on Mac actually uses it, and Windows has the real Office.

Hehe, nobody? You must be using the crippled Safari I guess.
Post reply on HN