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

Building a hackable editor in the browser

bjenik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: Building a hackable editor in the browser

#11

Post by onion2k »

Kaiyou wrote: post #9
XCSme wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My browser is not slow, for me starting and using a lot of desktop apps feels slower than browser apps to be honest.

Probably because your desktop apps are bloated, too. Any software that needs longer than zero point two seconds reacting to user action (this includes starting the program) should be improved upon.

I write moderately complex web apps and I have to say 200ms for a user interaction sounds like far too long. All apps regardless of where they're running should be managing a solid 60fps, which gives you a budget of 16ms for the UI to react to a user event.

Obviously starting the app is going to take longer, especially from cold, but if you ignore things like DNS resolution and download time then 200ms is more than enough for most things to get from 'downloaded' to 'interactive'.

Re: Building a hackable editor in the browser

#12

Post by onion2k »

pier25 wrote: post #3

script, style { display: block; } I have no words.

I do - that's great fun. I'm actually a bit surprised that the browser bothers to add text nodes to the DOM tree as normally there wouldn't be any reason to, but it's great to learn that they do, and might be something I'll have a play with one day.

Re: Building a hackable editor in the browser

#13

Post by stabbles »

XCSme wrote: post #7
Kaiyou wrote: post #6

...how about moving things out of the browser? It's cramped as it is. And then people wonder why their browser is so slow... "it's just displaying documents!"

My browser is not slow, for me starting and using a lot of desktop apps feels slower than browser apps to be honest.

Your slow desktop app is an electron app

Re: Building a hackable editor in the browser

#14

Post by pier25 »

teddyh wrote: post #5
pier25 wrote: post #3

script, style { display: block; } I have no words.

This is a discussion forum. Putting things into words is the purpose of commenting. If you can’t, then maybe you shouldn’t.

I did put something into words, didn't I? ;)

Joking aside, I would have thought this was possible.

Re: Building a hackable editor in the browser

#15

Post by pier25 »

onion2k wrote: post #12
pier25 wrote: post #3

script, style { display: block; } I have no words.

I do - that's great fun. I'm actually a bit surprised that the browser bothers to add text nodes to the DOM tree as normally there wouldn't be any reason to, but it's great to learn that they do, and might be something I'll have a play with one day.

Yeah, I've been writing CSS and HTML for over 20 years and I would have thought these tags were in the actual DOM and could be rendered.

Re: Building a hackable editor in the browser

#18

Post by giancarlostoro »

stabbles wrote: post #13
XCSme wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My browser is not slow, for me starting and using a lot of desktop apps feels slower than browser apps to be honest.

Your slow desktop app is an electron app

I was going to comment this. Typically these days a LOT of Desktop apps are Electron based:

VS Code, Slack, Signal, probably Keybase, Skype, MS Teams, Discord, RamBox, IRCCloud, Postman, Insomnia, Light Table, Hyper, and...

The list goes on.

But those are apps I have used and know are Electron. Thats at least 10 different instances of Chrome on a system running at any given time.

Re: Building a hackable editor in the browser

#19

Post by hibbelig »

pier25 wrote: post #15
onion2k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do - that's great fun. I'm actually a bit surprised that the browser bothers to add text nodes to the DOM tree as normally there wouldn't be any reason to, but it's great to learn that they do, and might be something I'll have a play with one day.

Yeah, I've been writing CSS and HTML for over 20 years and I would have thought these tags were in the actual DOM and could be rendered.

You would or would not have thought? I suspect you forgot a negation.
Post reply on HN