3 ms·
I am still a little skeptical about this new language. It is not so hard to to write optimizable JS. And when you need a real performance boost, most of such ta
by IvanK_net 11y ago
I am still a little skeptical about this new language. It is not so hard to to write optimizable JS. And when you need a real performance boost, most of such tasks are parallelizable, so you can use low-level WebGL or WebCL.
- nv-vn 11y agoThis isn't meant to replace the code you're writing, but rather serve as a target architecture for compilers. It may also end up speeding up your JavaScript if you compile it down, but the biggest difference will be to the current "compile-to-javascript" languages (TypeScript, Elm, Dart, etc.)
- robmcm 11y agoThe overhead of creating and transferring data between web workers can be very limiting, especially when we are talking about low level, high performance operations.
- corysama 11y agoNo browsers support WebCL. I believe Mozilla has stated that they prefer to wait to get WebGL compute shaders so that they can end up with one system to maintain instead of both. In my experience, carefully optimized JavaScript is still 10x slower than equivalent C++. C++ to JS brings that down to 2x.