Hacker News Reader

Comment by royjacobs | Hacker News Reader

I am genuinely curious, but why would you consider it not as important on a desktop to be fast or easily multi-threaded?

Especially the latter is really puzzling to me.

View on HN

And this isn't just desktops. We're also talking about laptops, and Electron based software completely disregards battery life concerns.

Chrome (technically not Electron but it includes all the same problems) and Spotify gobble down enough power that I make a point of not using them if I'm away from my power cord.

Here I thought the gradual year-over-year percentage increases in battery technology were going to get us better battery life, but it turns out we'd rather just write shittier software.

Why does Chrome use up so much battery?

IRT Battery life concerns - Electron utilizes OS based power management and will auto-sleep the app.

What other battery life concerns do you have that are automatically solved by another framework?

I couldn't tell you precisely why Chrome has comparatively bad battery usage, but it does:

http://blog.getbatterybox.com/which-browser-is-the-most-ener...

Even if you just leave it sitting in the background with one tab open, Chrome uses more power than Safari. I'm currently measuring an "Energy Impact" of 1.9 vs 0.1 for that test.

I don't have any hard data for Electron apps, but my experience is that they're worse than their native counterparts. For example, Spotify (playing offline files) vs iTunes.

The slower your application, the more battery it will consume to do the same task.

A JS+HTML application will be slower than a C++ application that uses the OS's native UI toolkit, and therefore will consume more battery.

I'm not saying that being fast doesn't matter on desktop, I'm saying it's a lot easier to be fast because desktop CPUs are faster. I'm not saying that an optimized experience doesn't matter, just that it's less important than it is on mobile.

Ok fair enough, I get what you're saying.

My point is that tools like Electron are actually making it harder to do fast and multi-threaded code on desktop compared to other (native) options. So in that sense Electron's just as "bad" as PhoneGap on a mobile device: it actively hinders developers that want to build decently performing applications.

This even happens with applications that are considered "toy" in this thread like Atom: Performance is really much worse than other editors like Sublime or TextMate.

> My point is that tools like Electron are actually making it harder to do fast and multi-threaded code on desktop

Absolutely. Electron is worse than native, I'd never disagree with that. But I don't think people are looking at Electron and saying "hmm, shall we do Electron or native?", they're saying "oh great, Electron means we can make a capable cross-platform desktop app, something we don't have the time nor budget to do otherwise".

That's true. It's an enabler for some companies, which can only be applauded. I'm not sure I'm too happy with the "worse is better than nothing" mentality I guess, but that's a more general problem :)

Nothing precludes an Electron app from being multithreaded (though WebWorkers, child processes and more) or relying on native components to improve CPU intensive tasks.

If someone is wanting to release a shitty application, they're going to do so irrespective of Electron availability.

I don't use Electron and haven't been following, but isn't Electron a UI only framework?

What I mean is what is preventing you from writing a C/C++ library, installing it down with your Electron UI and having the Electron App call out to the high performance .so?

PhoneGap gets a lot of hate because it's _slow_ and single threaded in an environment that is starved for resources. This can impact user experience even in _just_ a UI context. On a desktop, a single core is many times faster and there are much greater resources so I don't see it as having as large an impact on UI (if any at all noticeable user experience degredations). This is of course provided Electron is (or can be) UI _only_.

Just curious :) since I have never really heard of Electron before this.

While I guess you can do that, most developers using Electron are so familiar with HTML/Javascript/CSS and related web technologies that building a C/C++ module for the bulk of their app might seem only a step above going "full native".

The underlying JS engine is, iirc Node based... you can definitely use/utilize C/C++ modules/packages there... and very little is stopping someone from doing that. There are also child processes (and iirc, web-workers). While a Process !== a thread, on some OSes they are more similar or less in terms of creation cost. RPC/Communication channels are another issue combined with message serialization/deserialization which is the biggest cost to overcome with this type of model.

How does the existence of Electron decrease the ability to use other tools? It only offers another option... Just like .Net/Java do, both of which have disadvantages over C/C++ and the like.

What it comes down to in the end is, is the trade off worth it. With Electron/PhoneGap and the like, you have a much faster path towards an application. Web tooling is broadly understood, and a lot of that logic/workload can and often is already done, and being able to reuse it is helpful... Having a stack that is closer to the rest that you are using anyways means less disconnect.

It's not for everyone, but in the end it doesn't stop anyone from using C++, Go, Java, C#, Python or a number of other languages/tools.

Just want to point out that the browser, and electron, and even node.js are multithreaded... it's only the JS engine itself that is a single thread. Asynchronous code and the UI engine itself definitely runs and interacts across threads. Also, there's also WebWorkers (while not great, can work in some cases).

There are also native modules for Electron/Node which can work in background processes.

In the end, for the most part, in most applications, there isn't much logic that actually takes advantage of multiple concurrent threads for logic, and I/O is already multi-threaded.

Well, he is presuming that the increased performance of a typical desktop makes the performance difference smaller. Considering that Atom performs pretty well even on my five year old desktop, that seems like a reasonable assumption. Although I think this is discounting the fact that the performance difference between desktop and mobile platforms is shrinking every year.

I agree with you with regards to multithreading, though. It seems like that is actually important on both the desktop and mobile for compute intensive tasks.

The red herring in the original comment is that Electron apps can't be multithreaded. They absolutely can be - through web workers, child processes and more. They can also fall back to calling native components for CPU intensive tasks.

Just because Electron is used in a technology stack doesn't automatically mean that the developers are going to be lazy.

Lazy devs be lazy, bro.

Desktop processors generally have much higher single threaded performance. Thus apps can more often afford to take a performance hit on desktop than on mobile.

I think that's where we have a different opinion. The performance incurred by Electron applications is larger than I care to afford them, even on my speedy desktop.

Well, the same actually largely holds for me. Low responsiveness is something I despise in applications. However, the general principle obviously stands: if you have more hardware performance you can be more inefficient and still have good responsiveness.

Electron happens to cross the threshold for sensitive users like you and me, but for a large number of users it seems the step in performance from mobile to desktop is enough to buy you the "Electron/PhoneGap/Cordova abstraction" (seeing as how there are popular Electron apps but few for PhoneGap/Cordova).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com