3 ms·

Hi Cameron! I'm not trying to compete with anyone. I'm just building a browser (and operating system) for myself to use and have fun with. :) Regardless, the m

by akling 7y ago

Hi Cameron! I'm not trying to compete with anyone. I'm just building a browser (and operating system) for myself to use and have fun with. :) Regardless, the main things I aim to do differently: 1. No JS JIT, only interpreter. I don’t care that much about JS performance as a user and the difference in complexity is astounding. 2. I prefer the web as a platform for smart documents, not for applications. I don’t want to relinquish any control of my computer to the web, and don’t want most desktop integrations like notifications, etc. 3. In that same vein, very light on animations/transitions, that type of stuff. 4. Way less aggressive memory caching. I don’t like the sight of 100MB+ web content processes that’s so common these days.

cwzwarich 7y ago
> No JS JIT, only interpreter. I don’t care that much about JS performance as a user and the difference in complexity is astounding. One of the cool techniques we used in earlier versions of JSC (although someone told me it's been dialed back since then) was caching property accesses / method calls in the bytecode interpreter. This technique ended up getting published by someone else in a different context: https://web.cs.upb.de/cp/download.py?key=ecoop10 https://web.cs.upb.de/cp/download.py?key=ecoop10 I think there's more to be explored along these lines.
- akling 7y ago
  Definitely! There's a lot of interesting stuff that can be done with interpreters if you decide to focus on them instead of JITs :)
maxerickson 7y ago
Notifications don't have much to do with whether JS runs fast or not. I have them turned off and use Twitter and Gmail and Slack and so on. And along the 'control' axis, stuff running in the browser probably has less of that than the same stuff running outside of that sandbox.
ksec 7y ago
>I don’t care that much about JS performance as a user and the difference in complexity is astounding. >I prefer the web as a platform for smart documents, not for applications. I don’t want to relinquish any control of my computer to the web, and don’t want most desktop integrations like notifications, etc. I wish more people share the same opinion. We haven't even perfected the Smart Documents yet, but browsers has abandoned that work and moved to Web Apps instead.

by akling 7y ago

cwzwarich 7y ago

> No JS JIT, only interpreter. I don’t care that much about JS performance as a user and the difference in complexity is astounding. One of the cool techniques we used in earlier versions of JSC (although someone told me it's been dialed back since then) was caching property accesses / method calls in the bytecode interpreter. This technique ended up getting published by someone else in a different context: https://web.cs.upb.de/cp/download.py?key=ecoop10 https://web.cs.upb.de/cp/download.py?key=ecoop10 I think there's more to be explored along these lines.

akling 7y ago
Definitely! There's a lot of interesting stuff that can be done with interpreters if you decide to focus on them instead of JITs :)

maxerickson 7y ago

Notifications don't have much to do with whether JS runs fast or not. I have them turned off and use Twitter and Gmail and Slack and so on. And along the 'control' axis, stuff running in the browser probably has less of that than the same stuff running outside of that sandbox.

ksec 7y ago

>I don’t care that much about JS performance as a user and the difference in complexity is astounding. >I prefer the web as a platform for smart documents, not for applications. I don’t want to relinquish any control of my computer to the web, and don’t want most desktop integrations like notifications, etc. I wish more people share the same opinion. We haven't even perfected the Smart Documents yet, but browsers has abandoned that work and moved to Web Apps instead.