4 ms·
>Such as? Looks for .js and .jsm in the source tree. Bookmarks, Tab management, all UX, PDF viewer, Search, Prefs, Sync, parts of SafeBrowsing, WebRTC, Update
by rockdoe 11y ago
>Such as?
Looks for .js and .jsm in the source tree.
Bookmarks, Tab management, all UX, PDF viewer, Search, Prefs, Sync, parts of SafeBrowsing, WebRTC, Update Handling, Login and Form manager, Devtools, Reader Mode, and uh I think I've proven my point.
- RussianCow 11y agoBut none of those things will ever really bottleneck the browser except for maybe the PDF viewer. The performance of bookmarks, tab management, search, and basically all your other examples doesn't matter. The parts of the browser that benefit from speed are written in C++. Not that I'm convinced simply compiling with ICC will actually have a noticeable impact on the day-to-day performance of the browser, but it might speed up layout and other specific CPU-bound tasks. I'd love to see some benchmarks, but I think it's silly to shrug it off by saying that it won't matter because the browser UI is written in JavaScript.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoExplains why it barely handles my hundreds of bookmarks, though. Maybe I need to rewrite that part in native code haha.
- fungos 11y agoIt seems a joke but is also, sadly, a fact. Chrome bookmarks manager is lightspeed if compared to Firefox, to not mention total lack of usability on Firefox's part, so 1995.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoI was against them writing significant portions of Firefox in Javascript from the beginning. Maybe a generator from JS to native for templating interfaces or something. I could see some compromise to aid the web crowd in extending Firefox. Shouldn't be what's running, though, given the inefficiency.
- agumonkey 11y agoChrome bookmark manager stores a lot less though.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoIs there a limit on it or something?
- agumonkey 11y agoI meant meta data, Firefox has tags and more time information IIRC, thus does more and thus is prone to be "slower".
- nickpsecurity 11y agoAhh. That makes sense.
- gsnedders 11y agoIt sounds very much like a quality of implementation issue. There's no good reason why you can't deal with ten of thousands of bookmarks in JS with good performance.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoPossibly but why would you want to in an app mostly written in efficient, native code? The typical reason for scripting engines is easier configuration by users or less skilled programmers. So, the user interface made a bit of sense being JS. All this other stuff that mostly stays the same? Not so much.