3 ms·

Ok thanks. I guess I'm confused about the gains with asm.js. Looks like it is in the same ballpark performance wise as regular JS (and slower in some cases). So

by npalli 13y ago

Ok thanks. I guess I'm confused about the gains with asm.js. Looks like it is in the same ballpark performance wise as regular JS (and slower in some cases). So, why would anyone write in a crippled C-like subset of javascript and get normal javascript like performance. In the future if threading and SIMD is standardized, won't regular JS gain performance as well?

azakai 13y ago
No, look again at the numbers - asm.js gets much closer to native speed than normal JS, in many cases, especially large apps. In addition to the numbers in the article, you can see for example, http://kripken.github.io/mloc_emscripten_talk/#/28 http://kripken.github.io/mloc_emscripten_talk/#/28 asm.js code makes it easier to get within reach of native performance.
bad_user 13y ago
> why would anyone write in a crippled C-like subset of javascript Because asm.js is not meant for people, but for compilers. For example the Unreal Engine has been recently compiled from C/C++ to asm.js and is running in the browser: http://www.unrealengine.com/html5/ http://www.unrealengine.com/html5/
- camus 13y ago
  ... best viewed in ... netscape ?
  - cristiantincu 13y ago
    “Best viewed in Netscape” still wins over “Download for Windows (x86)”.
riffraff 13y ago
you are not expected to write asm.js, it's to be considered a compiler target (for e.g. emscripten etc)