4 ms·
Webkit - Introducing SquirrelFish Extreme
- snewe 18y agoUm wow, it is freaking fast. I have never seen Reader, Digg or Gmail load that quickly. Perhaps I can wait for Chrome on the Mac. Someone should benchmark this against V8.
- ROFISH 18y agohttp://summerofjsc.blogspot.com/2008/09/squirrelfish-extreme-has-landed.html http://summerofjsc.blogspot.com/2008/09/squirrelfish-extreme... Already done. ;)
- jwilliams 18y agoAnyone here know much about the SunSpider benchmark? It's used in this article. It's a WebKit benchmark, so if they are using that to drive their performance tuning then this might lead to a bias (if you use a benchmark as your milestones you're going to get good at that benchmark, even a complex one). Not saying they have, just curious.
- ionfish 18y agoSunSpider is used pretty widely; it claims to be a balanced benchmark, but where the balance point between different language features lies will depend quite a lot on what kind of application one happens to be writing, so it's more an art than a science. http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html
- sh1mmer 18y agoI'd also like to see this compared on a range of javascript test suites like John Reisig did recently. Good job on the quick test results though.
- 13ren 18y agoGoogle beaten! But just like the spectrum auction, even when it loses it wins.
- buymorechuck 18y agohttp://www.satine.org/archives/2008/09/19/squirrelfish-extreme-fastest-javascript-engine-yet/ http://www.satine.org/archives/2008/09/19/squirrelfish-extre... and done. Compare against Chrome on Windows.
- metaguri 18y agoYeah, just threw it on my laptop and it soars. Amazing. And still syncs with mobileme (you may laugh, but I have my bookmarks on my PC at work, and when I find a good article on news.yc and bookmark it, it shows up on my laptop at home)
- skalpelis 18y agoIt's funny how a completely new version of a three-months old javascript engine appears just a few weeks after the launch of Chrome. Not that that's bad, of course.
- othermaciej 18y agoIf you read the article it should be clear we didn't code all that stuff in just two weeks. Or if we did then we are stupendous badasses. :-)
- skalpelis 18y agoOh, I understand that, it's just amazing how Google was boasting about an increase of magnitude in js performance, only to have their asses handed to them in just two weeks :)
- tlrobinson 18y agoThe JavaScript engine performance improvements we've seen over the last few months has been awesome. The competition clearly benefits everyone. Obviously it varies between apps, but it wouldn't surprise me if the major bottlenecks in many applications are in the DOM access rather than JavaScript engine. It would be great if we saw similar competition on DOM performance.
- gruseom 18y agoit wouldn't surprise me if the major bottlenecks in many applications are in the DOM access No question about it. I'm wondering why we're not seeing much work being done in this area. Perhaps it's because the problems are messier and not as well defined (let alone as well researched) as things like method dispatch?
- othermaciej 18y agoWell if you put any stock in microbenchmarks, try this DOM in your favorite browsers: http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/perf/dom/artificial/core/001.html http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/perf/dom/artificial/core/001... Safari + ToT WebKit is way faster than the others.
- MaysonL 18y agoMacbook OS X 10.5.4 results FireFox 3.0 Total elapsed time: 1399ms Breakdown (fraction shows time relative to append time): Append: 1.00; 301ms Prepend: 1.49; 447ms Index: 0.32; 97ms Insert: 1.36; 410ms Remove: 0.48; 144ms Crossover Chromium Total elapsed time: 412ms Breakdown (fraction shows time relative to append time): Append: 1.00; 128ms Prepend: 0.90; 115ms Index: 0.28; 36ms Insert: 0.90; 115ms Remove: 0.14; 18ms Webkit Nightly Total elapsed time: 116ms Breakdown (fraction shows time relative to append time): Append: 1.00; 56ms Prepend: 0.29; 16ms Index: 0.36; 20ms Insert: 0.32; 18ms Remove: 0.11; 6ms
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- StrawberryFrog 18y ago"SquirrelFish Extreme" sounds like the kind of software product name that The Onion would come up with. err, yeah, faster JavaScript is good. Hope that Microsoft finally wake up and do something about theirs.
- tlrobinson 18y ago"SquirrelFish Extreme" sounds like the kind of software product name that The Onion would come up with. ...or, somewhat surprisingly, Apple. (Airport Extreme, Quartz Extreme)
- joshwa 18y agoReminds me of Firesomething: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/31 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/31
- maximilian 18y agoThe problem with the "Extreme" moniker is specifically: What do you call the next "version"? Squirrelfish Turbo? Super Squirrelfish Extreme? Squirrelfish this? I think this is why they invented version numbers, but of course, those get annoying after a while too. Isn't that why microsoft went to dates with office? Squirrelfish 2009 (which of course is released in the summer of 2008) Its pretty kickass though. I've been reading some of the literature on interpreter design lately because of all this javascript hype. Its really great stuff, and the basics are surprisingly simple to understand. I really love that they post their references along with the posts so we, the adoring public, can do some further reading on how they did what they did.
- nostrademons 18y agoAfter this, they go to key combinations on a Symbolics keyboard: Squirrelfish Super, Squirrelfish Meta, Squirrelfish Hyper, Squirrelfish Super-Meta, Squirrelfish Super-Hyper-Meta, etc.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago