3 ms·
Seems like a lot of complexity for very little gain in performance. Optimizing JavaScript often gain 100x performance, and after that rewriting it to Web-assemb
by z3t4 9y ago
Seems like a lot of complexity for very little gain in performance. Optimizing JavaScript often gain 100x performance, and after that rewriting it to Web-assembly would only gain up to 4x performance.
- fixermark 9y agoThe larger goal is to provide alternatives to compiling to JavaScript. JS is a relatively large, mobile, and ugly target for a compiler relative to tightly-defined bytecode alternatives like LLVM.
- sqeaky 9y agoThere is a performance upper bound. You can only run instructions as fast as the machine can. Native code can get very close to this limit, in a way that in practice no interpreted or JITed code can. This is just emulating the techniques native code uses to get close to that upper bound in the same way. It is not impossible to make pure JS run this fast, but its not going to happen without herculean effort put into JS runtimes. It is just easier to do it this way, and we get to leave JS, which is a benefit to everyone except people who actually like JS.
- roca 9y ago4x performance is worth having for many applications. The other thing is it's not just about performance, but also about running existing and future C/C++/Rust etc code on the Web.
- z3t4 9y agothose C/C++/Rust apps will perform worse on the web and a lot of glue code will be needed.