3 ms·
I'm curious what the performance is like in Chrome or Safari (which do not have asm.js support.) If performance is acceptable in Chrome/Safari then that helps
by ebbv 14y ago
I'm curious what the performance is like in Chrome or Safari (which do not have asm.js support.)
If performance is acceptable in Chrome/Safari then that helps sell the idea that the web is ready for 3D games now.
If the performance isn't acceptable then that helps to make the case for asm.js.
- pekk 14y agoWhat happens if NaCL performance is acceptable? By the reasoning you've applied here, doesn't that make the case for NaCL?
- ebbv 14y agoCome on, why ask a question like that? We're not discussing NaCl here. If you want to discuss NaCl that's a whole different issue. It's a totally different standard and quite a bit more complex than asm.js.
- mtgx 14y agoMozilla has already showed asm.js is 3-6x slower in Chrome, which doesn't support it right now.
- ebbv 14y agoYeah they showed a benchmark was 3-6x slower. That's all well and good. I wanna see what the real world implications are. Here's this cool Unreal demo running with asm.js support, it looks great. Now let me run it in Chrome or Safari and see if it's even remotely passable or not.
- pjmlp 14y agoLets not forget mobile devices as well.
- ilaksh 14y agoJavaScript is usually compiled to native code by WebKit and can have very good performance. 3d WebGL gaming performance both on Chrome and Firefox and Safari is usually a factor of WebGL support in the browser, drivers, etc., rather than JavaScript performance.
- BrendanEich 14y agoYou haven't read http://asmjs.org/ http://asmjs.org/ yet, I gather. /be