On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:02:09AM -0700, Nicholas Alexander wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:25 AM smaug <sm...@welho.com> wrote:
> I'm reminded of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=618912 but
> IIRC there were similar experiments back then on desktop, and basic html
> chrome was significantly faster than basic xul chrome.
That bug seems to be more about the layout.
https://screenshotscdn.firefoxusercontent.com/images/d1753829-3ebd-4c42-a757-14757051accf.png
is
the latest numbers I've seen. That isn't pgo, so may or many not be very
accurate, but the regression is
very significant.
I'm not expert in these areas, so I hope the experts chime in, but I think
there are lots of trade offs here. I believe that you are correct: the XUL
prototype cache and similar mechanisms significantly impact browser startup
and related metrics. But there is a general belief, which I do not have
references for, that the HTML widget set is either faster than or will be
faster than the XUL widget set. Certainly folks believe that effort should
be put into optimizing core Web Platform technologies (rather than
Mozilla-specific extensions).
We can't afford a startup or window opening performance regression. If
switching to HTML gives us other performance improvements, that's great, but
it can't come at the cost of performance in other areas that we've worked so
hard to get into reasonable shape.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
