4 ms·
I'd like to try this on the desktop. The difference in memory usage is probably an order of magnitude. That could make my 2GB laptop usable again. I doubt I'll
by childintime 8y ago
I'd like to try this on the desktop. The difference in memory usage is probably an order of magnitude. That could make my 2GB laptop usable again. I doubt I'll see the difference on any site I care about (no facebook for example). I remember when Java could make the browser totally unusable for several minutes. An interpreter would have avoided that.
- coder543 8y agothe difference in memory usage is 1.7%, according to the article.
- mbel 8y agoFrom the article: > Memory consumption only changed slightly, with a median of 1.7% decrease of V8’s heap size for loading a representative set of websites. What makes you believe is should be anything significant? After all the JIT-compiled code cannot be that large.
- olliej 8y agoJIT code for JS is /huge/ at the lower optimization levels, dramatically larger than an interpreter's byte code by something in the order of 10x - many megs of code are generated by relatively small amounts of JS code.
- firethief 8y agoIt still runs the bloated JavaScript programs, just slower
- xsmasher 8y agoThe "without allocating executable memory at runtime" means "without using allocating pages that are marked as executable," not "without allocating memory."
- ptx 8y agoJava did use an interpreter - it didn't get a JIT compiler until version 1.2. Java is slow for many other reasons as well.