3 ms·
The problem there is that there's a lot of sanity checking happening in browsers; I hope there will be a new technology where things like html, css and JS are a
by Cthulhu_ 2y ago
The problem there is that there's a lot of sanity checking happening in browsers; I hope there will be a new technology where things like html, css and JS are all precompiled / pre-verified so the page is executed as-is with minimal sanity checking.
There was a post yesterday about Python's random() vs randint; the former just spits out a random number, the latter does a list of sanity checks on the arguments passed, whose cost adds up in many invocations. But that's a runtime sanity check, if that can be done beforehand with e.g. a stricter type system + a "let it crash / fail" attitude at runtime, all that sanity checking overhead would be gone.
I mean this script / at-runtime checking is fine during development if it means shorter iterations and whatnot, but in production it shouldn't happen.
- Sesse__ 2y agoHi, I work on CSS parser performance, and error handling isn't really a big pain point; if you removed all error handling overhead, you would not be likely to notice any real performance increase in your web page loading. Most of the time, you just hit the happy path anyway, and the error checks from that is an easily-predicted branch. A precompiled format (i.e., binary) _may_ help (I don't think anyone has really considered it), but “pre-verified” means it would come down to who you trust to do that verification, so it's a hard sell.