3 ms·
I don't use Firefox but if that's the case then asm.js can no longer claim to be "just javascript". I wasn't expecting that one. Interestingly enough, this mak
by aegiso 13y ago
I don't use Firefox but if that's the case then asm.js can no longer claim to be "just javascript". I wasn't expecting that one.
Interestingly enough, this makes the V8 approach all the more welcome since it doesn't break backwards compatibility.
- yohanatan 13y agoIt sounds like you missed the distinction between a) displays an error and falls back to slower code and b) does not display an error and silently falls back to slower code. Neither of these options break any compatibility with Javascript proper (and yet one of them is highly more desirable than the other).
- azakai 13y agoasm.js does not break backwards compatibility, asm.js code runs exactly the same in all browsers (if it doesn't, that's a bug and must be fixed of course). Firefox will warn about asm.js validation errors, but those are just warnings in the web console. They do not affect semantics of execution at all, and are undetectable by the running code. So the code will run identically in all browsers regardless of whether it happens to fall in the asm.js subset or not.