On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> Who ever said they didn't?
>
Sam did:
> You'd need a benchmark that shows that the object allocation you're
> avoiding here is worth the lack of flexibility.
I see what you are getting at now, but you're missing something: your test2
> has an object literal per loop iteration which cannot be optimized away
> easily. The object and array literals in my slide that you are concerned
> about:
>
>
> - new Triangle([{ point: { x: 0, y: 0 },
> color: { r: 255, g: 255, b: 255 } },
> { point: { x: 5, y: 5 },
> color: { r: 128, g: 0, b: 0 } },
> { point: { x: 10, y: 0 },
> color: { r: 0, g: 0, b: 128 } }]);
>
> are neither mandatory -- see
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:binary_data_semantics#array_objectsand
> note how you can call new Triangle() and set members using dotted access
> and assignment -- nor as hard to optimize away than in the general case.
>
So you are suggesting to do something like this:
var p0 = new Point2D,
p1 = new Point2D,
p2 = new Point2D,
c0 = new Color,
c1 = new Color,
c2 = new Color,
px0 = new Pixel,
px1 = new Pixel,
px2 = new Pixel,
t = new Triangle([px0, px1, px2])
and per each typed object assign properties ...
p0.x = 0; p0.y = 0;
... sure this avoid creation of literal but who's gonna do that ? OK, at
least it is possible.
>
> How did the performance change?
>
in my Mac 13ms VS 16ms surely more if I use the Atom based Netbook
Best Regards,
Andrea Giammarchi
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
