jrmuizel

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by jrmuizel 14y ago

   The rasterization of the Unicode character will be cached in the glyph cache just like the rest of the glyphs, so the GIF is not really any cheaper.
2. 2.▲
   by jrmuizel 14y ago

   (x+1)>>1 isn't equivalent to x/2. It gives the wrong result for positive numbers like (x=1). Compilers actually generate (x+(x>>31))>>1 for signed division by 2. Which on x86 is three more instructions and requires a
3. 3.▲
   by jrmuizel 15y ago

   This performance claim doesn't seem to match the measurements others have done. For example, using the code from http://iq12.com/blog/as3-benchmark/ which I've put up here: http://people.mozilla.com/~jmuizelaar/v8-flash.html , I get a sc
4. 4.▲
   by jrmuizel 15y ago

   This works for me. What's read-only about the repositories that you get?
5. 5.▲
   by jrmuizel 15y ago

   My position isn't that there's "nothing wrong or unfixable about Jpeg" at all. There's lots wrong and fixable with JPEG. My problem with WebP is that it currently doesn't fix enough of the problems that JPEG has and that if we adopt it righ
6. 6.▲
   by jrmuizel 15y ago

   I'd like to respond to your criticism of my argument but I'm having trouble understanding it. As for my point about Facebook, I believe that they do care about the size of the images. However, the fact that they can be trivially and lossles
7. 7.▲
   by jrmuizel 15y ago

   I can't reproduce this in Firefox 6