3 ms·
According to the Chrome guys...it isn't a thing [0][1], and I tend to agree. They've kept up, and often exceeded FF, IMO, for real code by making a better JIT
by oso2k 12y ago
According to the Chrome guys...it isn't a thing [0][1], and I tend to agree. They've kept up, and often exceeded FF, IMO, for real code by making a better JIT compiler. They still haven't implemented asm.js and yet their "naive" approach to asm.js style code is on par.
[0] https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599#c53 https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599#c53
[1] http://mrale.ph/blog/2013/03/28/why-asmjs-bothers-me.html http://mrale.ph/blog/2013/03/28/why-asmjs-bothers-me.html
- gcp 12y agoThe links you pasted show Firefox currently being 3x faster than Chrome when running asm.js code, so I'm not sure what your point is. V8 is good at generating fast code without the hints, but obviously the extra restrictions help the optimizer. Even Google admits this when they try to promote Dart. asm.js does little for you if you write "real JS", but this thread is about cross-compiling other languages, which clearly has real world use.
- swah 12y agoI'm not a compiler expert but I also have the feeling that a new bytecode would be better. But if I recall correctly, there are very good reasons why we don't have that in our browsers; security concerns maybe? Anyone? Or http://hn.algolia.com http://hn.algolia.com, here I go again! (What a great post, thanks for linking. Even though I follow mraleph on twitter, I had never opened his website. Probably because it all looks like scary compiler stuff.)