4 ms·
> Why is that evidently not possible? :) Because Mozilla assured us that it was not. Central to Mozilla's case against Dart was the assertion that parts of it
by leoc 13y ago
> Why is that evidently not possible? :)
Because Mozilla assured us that it was not. Central to Mozilla's case against Dart was the assertion that parts of it - including bignums - could not be implemented efficiently by compiling to JS, leaving native Dart runtimes at a strong advantage.
- azakai 13y agoLink?
- leoc 13y agoHere we are: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094072
- azakai 13y agoThanks, reading that it says that native bignum support can speed things up. That's probably true - the only question is how much. If it's 25% vs 2,500% then that's what matters. I don't see an actual debate about numbers in that thread there, just generalities? As I said above, I would expect JS to reach about half of the speed of C. It's possible that having native bignums would have removed some of that difference. More importantly, the context here is PNaCl. Do you see a reason bignums could be emulated better in PNaCl vs JS? I assumed that's what you were implying, but perhaps I misunderstood you? Sorry if so.
- thrownaway2424 13y agoI'm not sure the poster meant "bignum" as in huge numbers like GnuMP handles, or if he meant exact 64-bit integers, which JS doesn't have (natively).