3 ms·
I'm very curious how you're coming up with your Uglify performance claims on this thread for a near 4MLOC JS codebase. I just tried Uglify on 6mb of ClojureScri
by swannodette 11y ago
I'm very curious how you're coming up with your Uglify performance claims on this thread for a near 4MLOC JS codebase. I just tried Uglify on 6mb of ClojureScript generated JavaScript (it's nowhere near 4MLOC) and it takes nearly ~34 seconds on 3.5ghz iMac. That's 3 times slower then your 10 second claim for your own code base which sounds orders of magnitude larger!
3-4X slower than Uglify I could believe, but saying Closure is 60X slower and claiming compression performance I cannot even reproduce with a code base that's 40-50X smaller. What???
- abritinthebay 11y agoI wish I knew what to tell you. I've never seen more than a minute on our codebase for Uglify. It could also be we were doing something stupid with Closure and slowing it down (like stopping then spinning up the JVM for each package for example) which is certainly possible. However if we add in some of the more computationally heavy Uglify options it will go up somewhat.