3 ms·
What do you base those technical claims on? Our numbers show asm.js can be 2x slower than native or better. That's not "not fast". And, even without asm.js opt
by azakai 14y ago
What do you base those technical claims on?
Our numbers show asm.js can be 2x slower than native or better. That's not "not fast". And, even without asm.js optimizations, the same code is 4x slower than native, which is as good or better than handwriten JS anyhow - which is not "incredibly poorly".
If you have other numbers or results, please share.
- skatepark 14y agoFor a desktop and/or mobile app, on which the consumer is waiting and you are burning battery (laptop/phone) or just simply CPU cycles, 2x-4x slower is 'not fast'. You're simply wasting the end-users time and resources for what amounts to ideological reasoning. We're always making a trade-off between performance and ease of programming, but when your competition is coming in at 2x faster than your optimal case, and 4x in the standard case, you're going to lose for all but the simplest apps.
- gsnedders 14y agoHow does PNaCl compare in terms of performance to "native" code? It still has the compilation overhead, it still has a lot of the bounds checking… It's not clear to me that PNaCl will actually be much quicker than asm.js.
- skatepark 14y agoI believe the ideal (for users) would be to target NaCL natively, with a fallback to server-side PNaCL compilation, and an absolute fallback to PNaCL compilation/execution.