4 ms·
Oh, fair dos. But I think asm.js is so much of a better idea that there's no reason to support NaCl - asm.js does everything it's supposed to do but better. I t
by AshleysBrain 13y ago
Oh, fair dos. But I think asm.js is so much of a better idea that there's no reason to support NaCl - asm.js does everything it's supposed to do but better. I think it was a pretty nice move from Mozilla.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> But I think asm.js is so much of a better idea that there's no reason to support NaCl - asm.js does everything it's supposed to do but better. A key focus of NaCl and asm.js is performance, and IIRC most benchmarks are showing NaCl with somewhere between a 25%-33% additional overhead over native C, and asm.js with somewhere in the neighborhood of 100% additional overhead, so I don't think I can quite agree that asm.js does everything NaCl is supposed to do but better. That said, the other advantages are there, and the performance gap may close.
- pcwalton 13y agoThose statistics are misleading. The asm.js numbers count compilation time, while the PNaCl numbers don't.
- dragonwriter 13y agoIf you've got statistics that show asm.js is equal or better including compilation time, I'm sure lots of people would like to see them.