3 ms·

Interesting how when you read the articles about WASM and ASMJS you see stuff like "1.5-2x peformance loss over native code" but here it's 35-3x. And this is a

Interesting how when you read the articles about WASM and ASMJS you see stuff like "1.5-2x peformance loss over native code" but here it's 35-3x. And this is a computation benchmark, it's not even hitting sand-boxed API overheads.

moron4hire 10y ago
It's a pretty bad benchmark. I don't think there are any conclusions about WASM, ASM.js, or JavaScript that we can glean from this. All we can get is "this person's translation process is not very good."
- stupidcar 10y ago
  All "this person's translation process" seems to be is selecting different compile targets in the official Rust compiler and then comparing the performance of each. Maybe some of those targets' optimisation is less mature than others, but the basic benchmark doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    My pointt was, given even the ASM.js version is slower than the vanilla JS version, it's a pretty good sniff test that the problem is in the Rust compiler and not the browser.
steveklabnik 10y ago
They didn't document what version of Rust they used, but our support is still fairly preliminary. For example, it wasn't until very recently that we even passed in flags to optimize the output at all. My understanding is that there's still a lot of low-hanging fruit with the integration generally.
- TurboHaskal 10y ago
  If it's a blog post, it's probably nightly.
  - steveklabnik 10y ago
    That doesn't answer the question of "which nightly". Is this a new post? I don't see a date anywhere. But regardless, my ultimate point is mostly "hey this stuff is brand new so some stuff not being great is to be expected." The exact details aren't very important.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    I don't think the blog post bit is important... all of my blog posts, while not performance related, are on stable Rust.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  I didn't see a link to the source. It would be really cool to see the source code so that other people could validate the work and help point out better implementation options. It's like a scientific paper not disclosing its methods.
  - steveklabnik 10y ago
    The upper right-most link on the page says "source code".
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      Ah. I missed that. Thanks!

moron4hire 10y ago

It's a pretty bad benchmark. I don't think there are any conclusions about WASM, ASM.js, or JavaScript that we can glean from this. All we can get is "this person's translation process is not very good."

stupidcar 10y ago
All "this person's translation process" seems to be is selecting different compile targets in the official Rust compiler and then comparing the performance of each. Maybe some of those targets' optimisation is less mature than others, but the basic benchmark doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  My pointt was, given even the ASM.js version is slower than the vanilla JS version, it's a pretty good sniff test that the problem is in the Rust compiler and not the browser.

steveklabnik 10y ago

They didn't document what version of Rust they used, but our support is still fairly preliminary. For example, it wasn't until very recently that we even passed in flags to optimize the output at all. My understanding is that there's still a lot of low-hanging fruit with the integration generally.

TurboHaskal 10y ago
If it's a blog post, it's probably nightly.
- steveklabnik 10y ago
  That doesn't answer the question of "which nightly". Is this a new post? I don't see a date anywhere. But regardless, my ultimate point is mostly "hey this stuff is brand new so some stuff not being great is to be expected." The exact details aren't very important.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  I don't think the blog post bit is important... all of my blog posts, while not performance related, are on stable Rust.
bluejekyll 10y ago
I didn't see a link to the source. It would be really cool to see the source code so that other people could validate the work and help point out better implementation options. It's like a scientific paper not disclosing its methods.
- steveklabnik 10y ago
  The upper right-most link on the page says "source code".
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    Ah. I missed that. Thanks!