3 ms·
Actually, looking at this I'm surprised that the mainstream browsers are still caching javascript, but not some pre-parsed/compiled version of the code.
by StillBored 6y ago
Actually, looking at this I'm surprised that the mainstream browsers are still caching javascript, but not some pre-parsed/compiled version of the code.
- shadowgovt 6y agoIt'd be glorious if there were a protocol to ship something closer to "machine code" from server directly to browser, but it doesn't exist. JS is the only language one can assume the browser can actually interpret.
- markdog12 6y agoAn interesting proposal: https://blog.cloudflare.com/binary-ast/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/binary-ast/ https://tc39.es/proposal-binary-ast/ https://tc39.es/proposal-binary-ast/
- exikyut 6y agoI wonder how many real-world pieces need to fall into place for WASM to become a realistically viable option. Obviously browser support is one fairly big component. (I've long wondered how much of Chrome's ~65% is straight-from-dl.google.com evergreen, but I guess that's just commentary). Then there's tooling... heh. That'll be its own eternal September just like JS has been I guess.
- markdog12 6y agoThey do, well at least Chrome does: https://blog.chromium.org/2015/03/new-javascript-techniques-for-rapid.html https://blog.chromium.org/2015/03/new-javascript-techniques-... > Chrome 42 introduces an advanced technique of storing a local copy of the compiled code, so that when the user returns to the page the downloading, parsing, and compiling steps can all be skipped. Not sure what's going on in Google Cloud UI, though. It's a dumpster fire.