3 ms·
I don't think the author fails to understand that, They know that Gnome Shell is written in JavaScript and are not trying to eliminate JS from their desktop --
by NoGravitas 8y ago
I don't think the author fails to understand that, They know that Gnome Shell is written in JavaScript and are not trying to eliminate JS from their desktop -- they are trying to _minimize_ the amount of JS running and thereby limit the scope of the memory leaks.
- erickj 8y ago"... I’m not sure that disabling user extensions actually disables the Javascript engine completely, but it definitely minimizes it to the least possible scope."
- ComputerGuru 8y agoActually, it does seem the author is unaware of the extent of JS usage in Gnome Shell: > User extensions are a mechanism that allow users to write GNOME extensions in Javascript, similar to how Chrome and Firefox extensions work. In my opinion this idea has dubious merit, and my personal feeling is the less Javascript in my life the better. I felt somewhat vindicated about this decision during recent coverage of a memory leak in GNOME Shell. The underlying issue was related to the Javascript garbage collector in GNOME Shell not collecting object references in a timely manner. I’m not sure that disabling user extensions actually disables the Javascript engine completely, but it definitely minimizes it to the least possible scope.