4 ms·

I'm intrigued that they keep pointing out that it's not using any asm.js optimisations, but still "performs well". "Performing well" in this case still means s

I'm intrigued that they keep pointing out that it's not using any asm.js optimisations, but still "performs well". "Performing well" in this case still means significantly slower than Firefox does on the same code: http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=12&view=breakdown&suite=asmjs-apps http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=12&view=breakdown&suite=asm... Which isn't to say that it's not a big improvement over where it was. But there's still a way to go on making it competitive, so far as I can see. Edit: Got name of the original engine wrong.

CJefferson 12y ago
Personally, I am more interested in improvements to asm.js like code. The limitations of asm.js, in particular the inability to allocate memory, greatly limits its usefulness for many applications.
- mnemonik 12y ago
  A work around is to pass a foreign function into your asm.js module to do allocations for you, but then you have to either implement your own GC, do reference counting, or just come up with some hand rolled lifetime management. I'm also interested in how asm.js could be improved in this regard without moving away from its existing barebones model. Would love to hear ideas. I think the first thing we will see is shared array buffers between workers because games really need that.
- sunfish 12y ago
  We're interested in that too; see the "Firefox (no asmjs)" line in those arewefastyet graphs. That shows Firefox with asm.js-specific optimization disabled.
9point6 12y ago
Apple's WebKit used "Nitro"/"JavaScript Core", did it not? V8 was just for Chrome (Which isn't even WebKit anymore).
- AndrewDucker 12y ago
  Thanks - fixed!