4 ms·

I still don't buy it. Javascript might buy a 4% performance improvement, but the increased resource usage makes that impractical for most scenarios. For serve

I still don't buy it. Javascript might buy a 4% performance improvement, but the increased resource usage makes that impractical for most scenarios. For server use, the increased wear makes it cheaper to buy more computers and have them last longer. For application use, performance is not relevant enough to make it interesting. So really the only possible application is video games. EDIT: before people accuse me of making a false dichotomy: I acknowledge that there are other uses for computers, but am unable to think of any others where the increased resource consumption would be worth it. Another thing: cell phones, the battery would drain much more quickly if everything were a webapp. Perhaps video game consoles will switch to such a JIT, though...

IgorPartola 8y ago
I mean Bitcoin is pretty much built on “increased resource consumption is worth it”. But I get your point.
- keymone 8y ago
  It’s not. It’s built on “here’s a way to convert energy into financial security and have a transaction platform on top of it”.
  - empthought 8y ago
    Any person in the situation where “financial security” based on government-issued currency is tenuous enough to make cryptocurrency an attractive option is either 1. doing something illegal, or 2. would be better off with access to the energy used. “There are no financial instruments that will protect you from a world where we no longer trust each other.” https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/01/02/why-bitcoin-is-stupid/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/01/02/why-bitcoin-is-st...
    - keymone 8y ago
      there are 3 assertions here and they are all dumb. first two aren't even about cryptocurrencies - every currency is more attractive than bolivar in Venezuela these days. i guess all those people are doing something illegal (surviving?) or will be better off with electricity (spoiler alert - they already have electricity). the last one is even dumber and coming from supposedly somebody who should know their way around finances and yet quotes like the one you posted or this one: > These are preposterous numbers. The imaginary value of these valueless bits of computer data represents enough money to change the course of the entire human race, for example eliminating all poverty or replacing the entire world’s 800 gigawatts of coal power plants with solar generation. Why? WHY??? just show how clueless he is. there is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust. and of course market cap numbers are preposterous. it's because they are meaningless and don't represent anything that exists in reality. not the amount of money that was spent acquiring those currencies, not the amount of money that can be made selling those currencies. it's meaningless numbers.
      - empthought 8y ago
        > There is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust. This is the point, though. Everyone expecting financial security has to trust. There is no alternative.
        keymone 8y ago
        the alternative is math. when you sign a transaction and it gets included in the blockchain - i don't need to trust anyone that i got the money, i don't need to fear the transaction will be reversed due to some banking policies, i don't need to fear my account will be closed, etc. so you're right, i have to trust math and i am ok with that.
        empthought 8y ago
        You still have to trust your counterparties, though, and they will always be less trustworthy in aggregate than the functioning of a financial system. You're worried about the wrong player in this game.
kevincox 8y ago
With projects such as https://github.com/rianhunter/wasmjit https://github.com/rianhunter/wasmjit it looks like this talk is basically coming true. Not exactly Javascript but running untrusted code in a safe language in the kernel can give already performance improvements for some workloads due to avoiding system call overhead. It will be interesting to see where this goes in the future.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Catching up with 1961.
- earenndil 8y ago
  Oh, to be sure, the technology will be there (and not unlikely make it into game console). I just struggle to see any other inlet for it. Not to mention that that benchmark is very synthetic and doesn't really reflect the kinds of speedups that will generally be found.

IgorPartola 8y ago

I mean Bitcoin is pretty much built on “increased resource consumption is worth it”. But I get your point.

keymone 8y ago
It’s not. It’s built on “here’s a way to convert energy into financial security and have a transaction platform on top of it”.
- empthought 8y ago
  Any person in the situation where “financial security” based on government-issued currency is tenuous enough to make cryptocurrency an attractive option is either 1. doing something illegal, or 2. would be better off with access to the energy used. “There are no financial instruments that will protect you from a world where we no longer trust each other.” https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/01/02/why-bitcoin-is-stupid/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/01/02/why-bitcoin-is-st...
  - keymone 8y ago
    there are 3 assertions here and they are all dumb. first two aren't even about cryptocurrencies - every currency is more attractive than bolivar in Venezuela these days. i guess all those people are doing something illegal (surviving?) or will be better off with electricity (spoiler alert - they already have electricity). the last one is even dumber and coming from supposedly somebody who should know their way around finances and yet quotes like the one you posted or this one: > These are preposterous numbers. The imaginary value of these valueless bits of computer data represents enough money to change the course of the entire human race, for example eliminating all poverty or replacing the entire world’s 800 gigawatts of coal power plants with solar generation. Why? WHY??? just show how clueless he is. there is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust. and of course market cap numbers are preposterous. it's because they are meaningless and don't represent anything that exists in reality. not the amount of money that was spent acquiring those currencies, not the amount of money that can be made selling those currencies. it's meaningless numbers.
    - empthought 8y ago
      > There is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust. This is the point, though. Everyone expecting financial security has to trust. There is no alternative.
      - keymone 8y ago
        the alternative is math. when you sign a transaction and it gets included in the blockchain - i don't need to trust anyone that i got the money, i don't need to fear the transaction will be reversed due to some banking policies, i don't need to fear my account will be closed, etc. so you're right, i have to trust math and i am ok with that.
        empthought 8y ago
        You still have to trust your counterparties, though, and they will always be less trustworthy in aggregate than the functioning of a financial system. You're worried about the wrong player in this game.

kevincox 8y ago

With projects such as https://github.com/rianhunter/wasmjit https://github.com/rianhunter/wasmjit it looks like this talk is basically coming true. Not exactly Javascript but running untrusted code in a safe language in the kernel can give already performance improvements for some workloads due to avoiding system call overhead. It will be interesting to see where this goes in the future.

pjmlp 8y ago
Catching up with 1961.
earenndil 8y ago
Oh, to be sure, the technology will be there (and not unlikely make it into game console). I just struggle to see any other inlet for it. Not to mention that that benchmark is very synthetic and doesn't really reflect the kinds of speedups that will generally be found.