Brendan I wrote I did it on purpose trying to predict what JS devs will do once JS.next will bring ctypes like syntax.
I wrote the object with properties only assigned too indeed but as is for functions expressions usually created everywhere by common developers rather than reused where possible I bet devs will do the same if that will land in JS. I will file the bench at mozilla soon, thanks. On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 17, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > > > Also I have explicitly slowed down the logic creating a "classic" literal > JS object per each loop iteration ... still, way too slow performances so > whatever js-ctypes has been created for, something went wrong, imo > > Why are you doing that? I mean this, from your ctypes.perf.html: > > for (var t = new Date, i = 0, length = npoints.length; i < length; i += > 2) { > window.lastPoint = {x: npoints[i], y: npoints[i + 1]}; > } > > Don't make an object per loop iteration, instead assign to .x and .y > separately. > > Anyway, the ctypes performance bug you're reporting does not predict binary > data perf. Ctypes as a privileged FFI for SpiderMonkey, based on Python > ctypes, was just brought up recently (in the life of SpiderMonkey). The JITs > do not optimize for it as they do for typed arrays. Please file it at > bugzilla.mozilla.org with your testcase. Thanks, > > /be > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
