3 ms·

Any idea why Chrome>String is such an outlier? I would have imagined quite the opposite from Chrome actually.

• gills 17y ago
  I thought Chrome kept [compiled] common js locally? I could be wrong. But it would seem explain some of the difference.
  • dutchflyboy 17y ago
    Yes, probably. That's why this sort of performance tests should only be done with an empty cache. Otherwise it isn't a fair comparison.
• judofyr 17y ago
  That said, Chrome is ridiculously fast at loading scripts. In absolute time, Chrome took an average of 12 milliseconds to load jQuery in the baseline test. The next closest was WebKit with 36 milliseconds. In the “string” test, Chrome takes about 50 msec compared to WebKit’s 45 msec. http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/272853740/cut-your-javascript-load-time-90-with-deferred http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/272853740/cut-your-javascrip...