DEV Community: yzbkaka_dev

No Apps, No Watermarks: How Pure Canvas Rendering Powers a Zero-Dependency Instagram Grid Tool

yzbkaka_dev — Thu, 29 Jan 2026 14:40:35 +0000

The Problem

In 2024, most image-processing tools rely on heavy frameworks (React, Vue) or backend APIs (Cloudinary, Imgur). These solutions introduce latency, tracking cookies, and mandatory sign-ups—all unnecessary for a simple grid-splitting task. When artists need to split photos for Instagram, they shouldn’t have to trade privacy for functionality.

The Analysis

The solution? A pure Canvas API implementation that runs entirely in the browser. Here’s why it works:

Zero Dependencies: No React, no Webpack, no analytics scripts. Just vanilla JavaScript.
Client-Side Rendering: All computation happens in your browser. Your photos never hit a server.
Modern Canvas Features: Leverages ImageBitmap for faster decoding and OffscreenCanvas (where supported) for smoother rendering.

Key Tech Details:

Image Splitting Logic: Uses canvas.getContext('2d') to slice images into precise tiles.
ZIP Download: Combines Canvas data with JSZip to package outputs without backend calls.
Responsive Design: Works on mobile (no pinch-zoom bugs) and desktop.

"Unblocked/Accessible" Advantages

No Account Required: No OAuth, no email harvesting.
No Watermarks: Unlike some "free" tools that brand your work.
Private by Default: All processing happens locally. Even your IP address isn’t logged.

Code Snippet (Simplified Rendering Logic)

// Split image into 3x3 grid
function splitImage(canvas, rows, cols) {
  const tiles = [];
  const chunkWidth = canvas.width / cols;
  const chunkHeight = canvas.height / rows;

  for (let y = 0; y < rows; y++) {
    for (let x = 0; x < cols; x++) {
      const tileCanvas = document.createElement('canvas');
      tileCanvas.width = chunkWidth;
      tileCanvas.height = chunkHeight;
      const ctx = tileCanvas.getContext('2d');

      ctx.drawImage(
        canvas,
        x * chunkWidth, y * chunkHeight, // Source crop
        chunkWidth, chunkHeight,         // Source size
        0, 0,                            // Target position
        chunkWidth, chunkHeight         // Target size
      );

      tiles.push(tileCanvas.toDataURL('image/jpeg'));
    }
  }
  return tiles;
}

Call to Action

If you’re building a lightweight image tool, skip the frameworks. The SnapKit Instagram Grid Maker is a live demo of what’s possible with pure Canvas and modern browser APIs.

Live Demo: https://www.snapkit.site/tools/instagram-grid-maker

No hidden costs. No tracking. Just code.

Ambigrams in the Browser: How a 50KB HTML5 Canvas App Delivers Instant Typographic Magic (Without Frameworks)

yzbkaka_dev — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 14:23:43 +0000

The Problem: Why “Simple” Web Tools Aren’t Simple Anymore

You’ve seen it: a user Googles “free ambigram generator,” clicks the top result, and gets hit with:

A 3MB bundle of React, Lodash, and analytics trackers
A “loading…” spinner that lasts longer than a CI pipeline
Flash deprecation warnings (in 2026!)
Or worse—a paywall for a PNG export

This isn’t just bad UX. It’s performance debt disguised as convenience. For a task as narrow as rendering two symmetrical words, we’ve over-engineered the hell out of it.

But here’s the thing: ambigram generation is fundamentally a canvas problem, not a framework one.

The Analysis: Lightweight Rendering > Heavy Abstraction

An ambigram doesn’t need a virtual DOM. It doesn’t need state hydration or SSR. What it does need:

Precise glyph manipulation (path-based letterforms, not text nodes)
Real-time visual feedback on rotation symmetry
Zero external dependencies — especially on school or public networks where CDNs are throttled

The solution? Pure HTML5 <canvas>, precomputed vector paths, and a render loop that runs in under 16ms—even on a $200 Chromebook.

No npm install. No Webpack config. Just:

<canvas id="ambigram-canvas" width="400" height="400"></canvas>
<script src="renderer.js"></script>

Inside renderer.js, the core logic is refreshingly minimal:

// Simplified pseudo-code for ambigram rendering
function drawAmbigram(word1, word2) {
  const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
  ctx.clearRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);

  // Use pre-defined glyph mappings (e.g., 'd' ↔ 'p', 's' ↔ 's')
  const upperGlyphs = mapToSymmetricGlyphs(word1);
  const lowerGlyphs = mapToSymmetricGlyphs(word2).reverse();

  // Render top half
  renderGlyphs(ctx, upperGlyphs, { y: 150, scale: 1 });

  // Render bottom half (rotated 180°)
  ctx.save();
  ctx.translate(canvas.width/2, canvas.height/2);
  ctx.rotate(Math.PI);
  renderGlyphs(ctx, lowerGlyphs, { y: -150, scale: 1 });
  ctx.restore();
}

Key wins:

No layout thrashing: All drawing happens off-DOM
Predictable GC pressure: Reuse path objects; avoid string concatenation in loops
Instant load: Entire app < 50KB gzipped

Compare that to a typical SPA that ships 2MB just to display a text input.

The Unblocked Advantage: Accessibility as a Feature

Most legacy ambigram tools relied on Flash or Java applets—dead on arrival for modern browsers. Others require WebGL, which fails silently on locked-down school devices or older Android tablets.

This approach? It works anywhere that supports <canvas>—which is every browser since IE9. That includes:

School Chromebooks with aggressive content filters
Public library terminals
Low-end Android phones

That’s not “nice to have.” In 2026, universal accessibility is table stakes for any public-facing tool.

Try It Yourself

If you’re debugging canvas performance, studying lightweight UI patterns, or just tired of bloated web apps, this is a clean reference implementation worth studying.

It’s also genuinely useful—students, tattoo artists, and designers use it daily.

👉 Live Demo: SnapKit Ambigram Generator

No tracking. No framework bloat. Just fast, functional typography in the browser.

P.S. If you fork this idea, please keep it lean. The web doesn’t need another 5MB “simple tool.”

Why Simple Web Tools Beat Complex Frameworks: A Viking Name Generator Case Study

yzbkaka_dev — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:57:34 +0000

I've been building web applications for over a decade now. I've seen frameworks rise and fall, watched bundle sizes explode from kilobytes to megabytes, and debugged performance issues caused by dependency trees so tangled they'd make a sailor weep. So when I recently stumbled upon a Viking name generator that loads in under 200ms without any framework dependencies, I had a realization that kept me up that night: we've overcomplicated the web.

This isn't a hit piece against React, Vue, or whatever shiny framework you're using this week. Those tools solve real problems at scale. But there's a category of web experiences—simple utilities, small tools, quick interactives—where we've collectively lost our minds. We ship 500KB of JavaScript to render a button. We import twelve libraries to format a date. We build SPAs for content that could've been a single HTML file.

The Viking Name Generator on SnapKit (which you can explore as a live demo here: Viking Name Generator) represents something we've largely forgotten how to build: a focused tool that does one thing well, loads instantly, and respects the user's time and bandwidth.

The Bloat Crisis We Don't Talk About

Let me quantify the problem because as developers, we love data.

Average mobile web page size has grown from roughly 1MB in 2015 to over 3MB in 2024. That's a 200% increase in resource weight, driven almost entirely by JavaScript bundles. The median webpage now executes more than 1,000 lines of JavaScript on initial load. We ship more code to render a landing page than the entire Apollo 11 guidance computer had available for the moon landing.

The justification, of course, is interactivity and user experience. Modern web apps need to feel native, respond instantly, handle complex state. But there's a massive gap between "we need interactivity" and "we need 47 npm packages to render a form."

The real cost isn't download size. It's latency, it's parse time, it's the main thread blocking that makes your phone发热 during routine browsing. It's the user on a spotty connection who waits 8 seconds for your "lightweight" tool to become usable. It's the developing market user on mid-range hardware who can't engage with your beautifully-animated experience because their browser runs out of memory.

I've built my share of bloated applications. I'm not immune. But every time I see a simple utility—something that could exist as a single HTML file with inline scripts—packaged as a PWA with service workers and a build pipeline that takes 3 minutes to run, I wonder if we've lost the plot.

What "No Dependencies" Actually Looks Like

Here's what I mean when I say "no dependencies," and why it matters.

When a tool like the Viking Name Generator claims no dependencies, it's making a specific technical statement. There's no React or Vue hydrating the DOM. No Angular bootstrapping an application context. No Webpack or Vite processing the build. No external fonts being fetched from CDNs. No analytics scripts tracking user behavior. No ad networks injecting their code. No third-party widgets adding latency to your latency.

Just HTML, CSS, and JavaScript executing in the browser's native rendering pipeline.

The rendering cycle looks something like this in its most basic form:

Input Event → DOM Update → Style Calculation → Layout → Paint → Composite

Six steps. No virtual DOM diffing. No component re-rendering. No reconciliation algorithm running on every keystroke. When you type your name into the generator, the browser receives the input event, updates the relevant DOM node, recalculates styles for affected elements, performs layout for any size changes, paints the updated pixels, and composites the final frame. That's it.

Contrast this with a typical framework-based implementation:

Input Event → State Update → Component Re-render → Virtual DOM Diff → 
Patch Operations → DOM Update → Style Calculation → Layout → 
Paint → Composite → (plus any useEffect cleanup, dependency 
resolution, context propagation, etc.)

Both paths end up at the same place—the user sees their name on screen. But the second path involves seventeen intermediate steps, multiple passes through JavaScript execution, and several opportunities for frame drops on lower-end devices.

The first path? It takes milliseconds. The second path? It takes milliseconds too, on a good machine, with a cached bundle, on a fast connection. But those milliseconds add up, and they compound in ways that matter.

The Accessibility Argument Nobody Makes

There's a conversation about web accessibility that focuses almost entirely on screen readers and keyboard navigation. Those are important. But there's another accessibility dimension we rarely discuss: device accessibility.

Not everyone has a flagship phone with 12GB of RAM and a desktop-class GPU. Not everyone has unlimited data plans or fiber connections. Not everyone lives in a city with robust network infrastructure. The web we build needs to work for all of those users, not just the ones on bleeding-edge hardware in developed markets.

A tool that loads instantly on 3G, works without JavaScript enabled (progressive enhancement), and doesn't drain the battery is more accessible than a feature-rich SPA that requires modern browser capabilities and sufficient system resources. Period.

The Viking Name Generator is accessible in this broader sense. You can open it on a five-year-old laptop. You can load it on a train with spotty cell coverage. You can use it on a work computer where IT has blocked everything but the basics. It meets users where they are rather than demanding they upgrade to participate.

This isn't nostalgia. It's not "things were better in my day." It's a recognition that the web's original promise—universal access to information—has been compromised by our collective obsession with developer convenience over user experience.

When Complexity Is Justified (And When It's Not)

I want to be clear: I'm not anti-framework. I've built production applications with React that served millions of users. I've shipped features that required the abstraction and state management that frameworks provide. There are genuine problems—complex interactive systems, real-time collaboration, data visualization at scale—that benefit enormously from modern tooling.

But here's the distinction I try to maintain: complexity should be proportional to the problem.

A content-focused website doesn't need client-side routing. A simple utility doesn't need a component library. A single-page tool doesn't need a state management solution that took three sprints to implement. We reach for complex tools by default, then wonder why our applications feel heavy.

The most performant web experiences I've built in recent years have been the ones where I started with "what's the minimum I need to solve this problem?" rather than "what's the standard stack I always use?" That question changes everything. It forces you to evaluate every dependency, every abstraction, every "nice to have" feature against actual user value.

The Viking Name Generator doesn't need a framework. It doesn't need a build pipeline. It doesn't need CI/CD deployments with blue-green environments and feature flags. It needs to take input, process it, and display output. That's it. And it achieves that goal with fewer moving parts than any modern web application I've worked on.

A Call for Intentional Simplicity

I'm not suggesting we abandon everything we've learned about web development. I'm suggesting we be more intentional about what we choose to use and why.

Before you npm install that UI library, ask yourself: what problem does this solve that CSS can't? Before you wrap your entire application in a context provider, ask yourself: is this state actually global, or am I just avoiding proper component composition? Before you spin up a new micro-frontend, ask yourself: would a single HTML file with inline styles work?

These questions feel heretical in an ecosystem that celebrates complexity as sophistication. But I've learned that the best developers I know—the ones whose code I actually want to read and maintain—are the ones who fight complexity at every turn. They add layers reluctantly. They refactor toward simplicity. They build systems that future developers (and future versions of themselves) will actually understand.

The web doesn't need more frameworks. It needs more tools that work. It needs more experiences that respect users. It needs more developers willing to say "this is simple, and that's the point."

If you want to see what I mean, or if you're looking for a clean reference implementation of a no-dependency web tool, check out this live demo: Viking Name Generator

It's not trying to be a showcase of modern web capabilities. It's just trying to work. And in 2024, that feels almost radical.

What simple web tools have you built or encountered that strip away the complexity? Am I just being a grumpy old developer who's forgotten what modern development looks like? Let's discuss in the comments.

Stop Eyeballing Your UI: The Performance Cost of Poor Alignment

yzbkaka_dev — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 15:10:03 +0000

We’ve all been there. You just finished a complex layout, the PR is open, and a designer leaves a comment: "Can we move this button 4px to the right? It looks slightly off." You go back to the code, adjust the margin, refresh, and realize that by fixing the button, you’ve somehow shifted the entire flex container. Now you’re "eyeballing" it—squinting at the screen, holding a physical ruler up to your monitor like it’s 1995, and praying to the CSS gods that the alignment is mathematically sound.

The problem? Most of us rely on heavy browser extensions to check our work. You know the ones—they inject 50MB of background scripts, thrash the DOM, and somehow manage to trigger a Garbage Collection event just by toggling a ruler. If your dev tools are heavier than the app you're building, you've got a problem.

The Analysis: Why "Visual Drift" Happens

Visual drift isn't just a "design thing." It's a technical byproduct of the Render Cycle. When we deal with responsive units (vh, vw, %), sub-pixel rounding errors can accumulate. A 12-column grid might look perfect on a 1440px viewport but start "drifting" by 0.5px on a 1366px screen.

If you don't have a way to audit this scaffolding without adding more weight to the Main Thread, you're essentially flying blind. Using heavy "Inspect Element" overlays can actually alter the layout you're trying to measure by triggering unnecessary Reflows.

The Solution: Zero-Dependency Grid Auditing

The "Senior" way to solve this is to use a tool that is as close to the browser's bare metal as possible. No heavy frameworks, no bloated libraries, and—most importantly—nothing that messes with your existing CSS Object Model (CSSOM).

I’m a big fan of "Unblocked" utilities. These are tools that are essentially dependency-free and run directly in the browser without requiring a 10-step installation process. By using a lightweight grid overlay, you can verify alignment against the browser's Compositor Layer without the overhead.

Here is a simplified logic of how a performant grid overlay works without killing your frame rate:

// A minimalist approach to grid rendering
function createAuditGrid(step = 20) {
  const canvas = document.createElement('canvas');
  const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d', { alpha: true });

  // Use requestAnimationFrame to ensure we don't block the UI
  window.requestAnimationFrame(() => {
    ctx.strokeStyle = 'rgba(255, 0, 0, 0.2)';
    ctx.lineWidth = 0.5;

    // Low-overhead loop: Draw vertical lines
    for (let x = 0; x <= window.innerWidth; x += step) {
      ctx.moveTo(x, 0);
      ctx.lineTo(x, window.innerHeight);
    }
    ctx.stroke();
  });
}

Project Link

If you’re tired of bloated extensions and just want a clean, high-performance way to audit your layouts, I found a minimalist implementation that gets it right. It’s snappy, doesn't lag your browser, and is a perfect example of "Single Responsibility" engineering.

Check out the Live Demo here:
Grid Overlay Tool

It’s a great reference case for any dev who wants to see how a "pure" utility should behave. No fluff, no latency—just the data you need to ship a pixel-perfect UI.

Stop Using 2MB of JS for Simple Math: The Case for Minimalist Web Tools

yzbkaka_dev — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 14:43:29 +0000

Look, I love React and Vue as much as the next dev, but we’ve reached a point of collective insanity where we pull in an entire framework and three heavy npm packages just to calculate the difference between two timestamps.

I was auditing some "utility" sites recently and found a simple calculator that was shipping 1.5MB of gzipped JavaScript. For what? A few date objects and some basic arithmetic? That’s not "modern development"—it’s technical debt passed onto the user’s CPU.

The Problem: Bloat as the Default

We’ve become so reliant on heavy dependencies that we’ve forgotten how to build for the "low-spec" web. When you ship a tool that’s supposed to be quick, but it triggers a massive Garbage Collection event or stalls the Main Thread for two seconds on a budget Chromebook, you’ve failed the UX test.

Most users don't care about your state management library. They care about Time to Interactive (TTI). They want a tool that loads instantly, even on crappy school Wi-Fi or behind a restrictive corporate firewall.

The Analysis: Precision without the Weight

Handling date math in JavaScript is notoriously finicky (thanks, leap years and UTC offsets), but you don't need a 50KB library to solve it. A senior approach is about writing lean, pure functions that handle the edge cases without the overhead.

Here’s a quick look at how you handle a clean diff without the bloat:

// Keeping it light: No Moment.js, no Luxon.
function calculateTemporalGap(startDate, endDate) {
  const start = new Date(startDate);
  const end = new Date(endDate);

  let years = end.getFullYear() - start.getFullYear();
  let months = end.getMonth() - start.getMonth();

  // Adjust for partial years
  if (months < 0 || (months === 0 && end.getDate() < start.getDate())) {
    years--;
    months += (months < 0) ? 12 : 0;
  }

  // The goal is low-latency execution and zero DOM thrashing.
  return { years, months };
}

The "Unblocked" Advantage

One thing I appreciate is seeing tools that prioritize accessibility and portability. I recently came across a suite of utilities that follows this "zero-bloat" philosophy. No tracking scripts slowing down the render cycle, no heavy assets—just functional HTML/CSS/JS that runs on literally anything.

Because these tools don't rely on 30 different third-party CDNs, they are often "unblocked" in environments like schools or high-security offices where most "fun" sites are killed by the admin. It's a great example of how a Minimalist UI leads to better real-world performance.

Project Link

If you’re looking for a clean reference of a utility that does exactly what it says on the tin without the typical web-dev ego (aka unnecessary frameworks), check out this Live Demo:

Age Difference Calculator (Clean Version)

It’s a solid reminder that sometimes, the best "feature" you can give your users is a fast, dependency-free experience.

Flash is Dead, Long Live HTML5: How We Resurrected the Golden Age

yzbkaka_dev — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 02:35:54 +0000

Do you remember the day the internet died?

For many of us, it was December 31, 2020. That was the day Adobe officially killed Flash Player. In an instant, decades of creativity—interactive art, weird animations, and legendary games—went dark. It was a digital library of Alexandria burning down in slow motion.

But developers are a stubborn bunch. We didn't let it disappear.

Today, I want to talk about the incredible engineering effort behind preserving Flash content through HTML5 emulation, using the cult classic Riddle School as our case study.

The "Plugin" Era vs. The Open Web

Junior devs might not remember this, but there was a time when the <canvas> tag didn't exist. If you wanted to do anything cool in a browser, you needed a proprietary black box called the Flash Player.

It was a security nightmare. It was closed source. It ate battery life for breakfast. But it was also the most accessible creative tool ever made.

When Flash died, we faced a choice:

Rewrite everything from scratch (The "Impossible" Route).
Emulate the AVM (ActionScript Virtual Machine) in JavaScript (The "Crazy" Route).

We chose the crazy route.

How Emulation Works (The "Ruffle" Magic)

Projects like Ruffle are essentially miracles of modern engineering. They take compiled SWF files—binary blobs meant for a specific 2005 runtime—and interpret them on the fly using WebAssembly (Wasm).

This allows games like Riddle School to run natively in a modern Chrome browser without a single plugin installed.

I've been testing the current state of this emulation on this specific unblocked port, and the fidelity is shocking.

Why This Is Harder Than It Looks

ActionScript (Flash's language) was a weird beast.

AS2 was loose, prototype-based, and messy.
AS3 was a strict, class-based cousin of Java.

To build an emulator that handles Riddle School (which relies heavily on precise click events and frame-based logic), the emulator has to recreate the entire display list rendering pipeline within the HTML5 Canvas.

// Pseudo-code of what the Emulator (Wasm) does:
match tag {
    Tag::ShowFrame => self.render_display_list(),
    Tag::DoAction(bytecode) => self.avm1.execute(bytecode),
    Tag::DefineSprite(sprite) => self.store_asset(sprite),
}

It's translating 20-year-old bytecode into modern GPU instructions in real-time.

The Importance of "Unblocked" Access

Why go through all this trouble? Why not just let these old games die?

Because they are part of our history.

I often see searches for terms like "unblocked" or "no flash." This isn't just kids trying to slack off in class (though, let's be real, that's part of it). It represents a demand for software longevity.

When you play Riddle School Unblocked today, you aren't just playing a game. You are interacting with a piece of software archaeology that has been carefully restored.

It works on Mobile. (Flash never really did).
It works on Linux.
It works without risk. No more "Update Flash Player" malware vectors.

Conclusion: The Web Wins

The death of Flash didn't kill browser gaming; it forced it to evolve. We traded a proprietary plugin for open standards (Wasm, WebGL, Canvas).

If you want to see how far we've come—or if you just want to relive the glory days of Newgrounds without installing a sketchy .exe—go check out the port.

Check out the Live Demo here

It’s proof that in the open source world, nothing is ever truly dead. We just refactor it.

(P.S. If you can beat the final alien level without a walkthrough, you're a better gamer than I am.)

Why Your React App Lags but This Canvas Game Runs at 60FPS

yzbkaka_dev — Wed, 26 Nov 2025 06:40:16 +0000

We need to talk about the state of modern web development.

Yesterday, I profiled a simple corporate dashboard. It had a bundle size of 2.4MB (gzipped), took 3 seconds to reach Time to Interactive (TTI), and dropped frames whenever I opened a modal. It was built on a "modern" stack.

Then, strictly for "research purposes," I opened a tab running Vex 4. It loaded instantly. I ran it on a throttled network profile. I ran it on an aging Chromebook I keep for testing media queries.

The result? A buttery smooth 60fps. No jitter, no layout thrashing, just raw input response.

As developers, we often get lost in state management libraries and forget the raw power of the browser when we get out of its way. Here is a look at why "simple" HTML5 projects like Vex 4 are still the gold standard for runtime performance.

The Cost of the DOM

The main reason your SaaS app feels sluggish compared to a game like Vex 4 is the abstraction layer.

Modern apps rely heavily on DOM manipulation. Even with Virtual DOMs, you are essentially asking the browser to recalculate styles, compute layout, and repaint layers every time a state changes.

HTML5 games, on the other hand, often utilize the Canvas API. They operate in "Immediate Mode." They don't care about the DOM tree. They just wipe the screen and paint pixels.

The Loop

In Vex 4, the stick figure's physics aren't waiting for a React useEffect to trigger or a state to settle. It relies on the holy grail of web animation: requestAnimationFrame.

Here is a simplified pseudo-code of what’s happening under the hood compared to a typical app lifecycle:

// The Vex 4 Approach (Simplified)
const canvas = document.getElementById('game-stage');
const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');

function gameLoop() {
  // 1. Physics Calculation (CPU bound, fast)
  player.updatePosition();
  collision.check();

  // 2. Rendering (GPU bound, optimized)
  ctx.clearRect(0, 0, width, height);
  player.draw(ctx);
  level.draw(ctx);

  // 3. The Recursion
  requestAnimationFrame(gameLoop);
}

// Kick it off
requestAnimationFrame(gameLoop);

There is no diffing. There is no reconciliation. Just a pure render cycle synced to the display's refresh rate.

Testing the "Unblocked" Experience

I used Vex 4 as a benchmark for testing input latency on constrained networks. Since it is an unblocked HTML5 project, it bypasses the need for heavy server-side rendering or client-side hydration.

The assets are lightweight. The logic is client-side.

I tested the game on a restrictive network environment (simulating a corporate VPN/firewall scenario). Because the game relies on standard web technologies without complex WebSocket handshakes or external heavy dependencies, it initializes immediately.

For developers looking to understand what "low overhead" actually looks and feels like, this is a solid reference implementation. It handles complex collision detection (spikes, saws, swimming physics) without the Garbage Collector causing noticeable stutter.

Conclusion

I'm not saying we should build our e-commerce checkout forms using Canvas (please don't). But we should appreciate the engineering elegance of these browser games.

They remind us that the browser is capable of incredible performance if we stop clogging the main thread.

Next time you are waiting for your npm install to finish, or you want to test if your browser’s hardware acceleration is actually working, take a look at this project. It is a great example of pure, unadulterated JavaScript performance.

👉 Live Demo / Performance Test: Run Vex 4 Here