4 ms·
Code caching should have been at the top of that post. Sure its not as exciting as streamed parsing but my guess is that it will be far more beneficial to the u
by lugg 12y ago
Code caching should have been at the top of that post. Sure its not as exciting as streamed parsing but my guess is that it will be far more beneficial to the user.
Funnily enough I was toying around with cross domain local storage and ways to cache javascript for this very purpose. Sadly I found the overhead was a bit too high for only first load benefits and the extra complexity didn't really help things either. In any case, nice to see something of this nature going into the browser directly.
- tmd83 12y agoExactly my thought on which would be more important. Though one thing is even more surprising for me. I thought parsing was the easy/cheap part of the compilation process. Why would then streaming parsing be such a big deal or am I missing something? Specially with the additional complexity of parsing the html and layout/rendering I would have thought JS parsing would be a minuscule part. Can anyone enlighten me?
- lugg 12y ago> pages loading as much as 10% faster. In other words, its not, that was kind of my point, however it is cool. I suspect, the devs had to modularize / logically separate parsing from compiling / executing somewhat before they could complete the next phase (fro chrome 42) which is the script caching part: cached scripts won't need re-parsing before compilation/execution.