zaharpopov

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by zaharpopov 13y ago

   >It's much simpler than LLVM and reuses the components of the JavaScript engine that already must exist in browsers. But Google say they used simplified subset of LLVM IR. In addition as far as I understand PNaCl has its own triple whic
2. 2.▲
   by zaharpopov 13y ago

   > It's much simpler than LLVM and reuses the components of the JavaScript engine that already must exist in browsers. But LLVM IR has complexity for a reason - you need to be able to generate efficient code from it for multiple architec
3. 3.▲
   by zaharpopov 13y ago

   Well you have benchmarks in that talk - PNaCl is 1.2x native speed. asm.js is ~2x. Single threaded. With multiple threads PNaCl will smoke asm.js since the latter has no threads at all. A 2x performance difference means your phone lasts 3 h
4. 4.▲
   by zaharpopov 13y ago

   > No, an asm.js that supported all of these would still just be JavaScript, which is far more lightweight than PNaCl. What makes asm.js "far more lightweight" than PNaCl? What more "lightweight" means here anyway? > No, we are compi
5. 5.▲
   by zaharpopov 13y ago

   Oh no, please please NO. asm.js is a nice hack and a commendable technical feat, but it's an absolutely horrible way moving forward. Do we really want to look back 10 years from now and see that we picked some crooked-n-twisted subset of JS