3 ms·
Don't make assumptions. Here's a possible explanation (but who knows): At a certain page height, WebKit/Blink may change rendering behavior. It doesn't need
by nevir 11y ago
Don't make assumptions.
Here's a possible explanation (but who knows):
At a certain page height, WebKit/Blink may change rendering behavior. It doesn't need to render elements that are far away from the viewport.
- carterehsmith 11y agoYou did not think this through, did you. His chart shows that rendering 1000 photos is _faster_ (>3X) than rendering 200 photos. Think about it. How long it took to render photos 200-1000 (in the 1000 run) ? Negative time? Please don't tell me that V8 is so awesome that it can run JS in negative time.
- curveship 11y agoEasy there. You've misunderstood the benchmark. It shows the time to add 100 images, given the existing number of images. So adding the 900th-1000th image was ~3x faster than adding the 100th-200th.
- carterehsmith 11y agoI realized that, and looked over the thing again, but the measurement still does not add up - even the author calls it "bamboozle" and says "I have no idea what’s happened at the end.". So if the benchmark produces weird results, and is published without source code, so that the results cannot be reproduced, why would anyone trust it? Even the author suspects the V8 optimized away the vanilla code... and if that is what happened, then apples are being compared to oranges and the whole conclusion is bogus. Which was kind of my point.