3 ms·
> While its performance and memory usage is marginally better these days, it has still been years without any significant improvement It's basically tracked/ca
by dbaupp 13y ago
> While its performance and memory usage is marginally better these days, it has still been years without any significant improvement
It's basically tracked/caught up to Chrome on 3 major benchmark suites over the past year.
http://arewefastyet.com/ http://arewefastyet.com/
- cwzwarich 13y agoJavascript microbenchmarks don't really matter for browser performance on realistic workloads at this point.
- aclevernickname 13y agoPay attention, class. this is an example of the "Moving The Goalpost" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost
- cwzwarich 13y agoHow is my statement "moving the goalpost"? I'm not moving any goalpost; I never claimed at any point that JS microbenchmarks were a good indicator of overall browser performance. At a time when JS execution was a larger part of browser workloads (and the implementation techniques of JS engines were extremely simple compared to what was known to be possible for dynamic languages) JS microbenchmarks were a better proxy for whole browser peformance, although they weren't great at that point either. Today, all popular browsers have relatively decent JS engines and differences on microbenchmarks just don't reflect total browser performance as much as they did in the past.
- dbaupp 13y agoSurely JS execution is a larger part than ever of browser workloads, or are you referring to things like CSS3 which move some of the rich-webapp work out of javascript?
- Raphael 13y agoKeeping up with Chrome is a significant improvement.