3 ms·

Browsers already have a persistent cache! If you're downloading it on-demand and caching it, why would it need to be integrated in the browser at all? Why not

• krapp 5y ago
  > Browsers already have a persistent cache! And yet whenever this comes up, someone always insists that you'd have to re-download the entire runtime with every request, as if caching wasn't a thing. As far as shipping vs caching goes, I see no reason not to do both. Maybe ship with the latest version of a few popular languages including javascript already pre-cached and allow for downloading others as required. I don't know what would be more optimal. Maybe when you download a browser, you can select language support options. My point is, this is just an implementation detail, it doesn't have to be awkward or inefficient.
• jchw 5y ago
  Caching is partitioned by origin for privacy reasons; caching still helps, but a public CDN solution doesn’t improve things any. That does open an argument for having a kind of global interpreter cache, though it could still be used for fingerprinting.
• bastawhiz 5y ago
  Different origins don't share a cache anymore. A Google Font on one origin doesn't benefit from it being cached after it's used on another origin. The browser handling this as a special feature by default avoids cache isolation issues. It also makes it trivial to avoid leaning on even more third parties (CDNs, package managers) to run your code: as long as your browser is supported, code won't stop working in it.