700 karma · joined October 3, 2014
I get 12+ million operation (a true master race class) vs advertised 800,000 and peasantry of jQuery's 300,000.
Not sure if I want to sacrifice performance for aesthetically better looking (debatable ofc) syntax and bother investing time learning how to do something slower.
phantomjs is used mainly by developers. you can't seriously compare it to chrome or firefox.
quick scan shows that most of the bugs showing up in chrome and firefox are very platform centric or esoteric issues while phantomjs is concerning because they are literally about being unable to render a webpage without crashing.
1470 open issues
the first one is about phantomjs crashing and many many other scary sounding issues you wouldn't have if you've used just a regular browser with Xvfb.
you can't really be sure unless you've literally run a test on the colorful variety of websites in the wild. You need a huge development and quality assurance team. You also need a way for a large crowd of people to test your browser and send back useful reports automatically whenever it crashes.
2. Write a wrapper around it claim its good as a real browser.
3. Plug company name
4. Profit ??
Then their jets started falling left and right and they ended up installing it back again.
Did they fix the memory leak issues in PhantomJS? Take a look at the issues and consistently you will find people having trouble rendering a complete site.
Creating a headless browser is really taking a real browser on Xvfb. You have the support of a billion dollar company supporting and updating their browser, you reap the benefits of being able to run it headlessly. The drawbacks of this method is often overstated, 'oh my run a fat browser process AND X display? ok grandpa' but the real hidden problem with PhantomJS is understated 'why does my phantomjs process balloon in memory and cpu usage and crash, I can render the website fine in my browser'.
Standalone headless browsers are good for hacks but I wouldn't rely on it.
Get your shit together and then reassess, you need a roof over your head first if you wanna keep at it.
good luck.
could you host this on digitalocean?
I smell commoditization.
Even the two times the Phoenix missile was fired they both failed. Not sure how a completely cut off Iranian air force with no spare parts or maintenance knowledge would've been able to fire at Iraqi, an equally incompetent force, my guess is the Iraqi air force actually crashed before the Iranians did.
we are seeing revitalization of McNamara's failed Standardization policy in all fighter. The very fact that completely different plan designs came out for different theaters and purposes show this. A-10 for low flying, heavy, armor shelled plane. Tomcat that withstands naval capatapults and fly long range with good fuel efficiency (variable swept wings), and eventually the Hornet vs. using naval F-16 or F-15
software and everyone involved in it's development are becoming commoditized via open source or money being injected by venture capital or a non-monopolized industry over time ends up on certain standards and margin falls for everyone.