←back to thread

261 points tosh | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
ComputerGuru ◴[] No.42068005[source]
I don't mean to be dismissive, but this would have been caught very early on (in the planning stages) by anyone that had/has experience in system-level development rather than full-stack web js/python development. Quite an expensive lesson for them to learn, even though I'm assuming they do have the talent somewhere on the team if they're able to maintain a fork of Chromium.

(I also wouldn't be surprised if they had even more memory copies than they let on, marshalling between the GC-backed JS runtime to the GC-backed Python runtime.)

I was coming back to HN to include in my comment a link to various high-performance IPC libraries, but another commenter already beat me linking to iceoryx2 (though of course they'd need to use a python extension).

SHM for IPC has been well-understood as the better option for high-bandwidth payloads from the 1990s and is a staple of Win32 application development for communication between services (daemons) and clients (guis).

replies(5): >>42068089 #>>42068102 #>>42068122 #>>42068349 #>>42068545 #
1. diroussel ◴[] No.42068122[source]
Sometimes it is more important to work on proving you have a viable product and market to sell it in before you optimise.

On the outside we can’t be sure. But it’s possible that they took the right decision to go with a naïve implementation first. Then profile, measure and improve later.

But yes the hole idea of running a headless web browser to get run JavaScript to get access to a video stream is a bit crazy. But I guess that’s just the world we are in.