Okay, that's helpful. Maybe it's worth slowing down the downloads for a while to get some better insight into some of the errors customers are getting, since it'll allow me to read the stack traces Firefox includes in the exceptions.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Vitali Lovich <vlov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just listened to the talk - didn't hear him say anything regarding > performance of long name vs short names. > > The execution difference for smaller names shouldn't exist for the new > generation of browsers using JIT for javascript (i.e. FF3.5, Safair 4, > Chrome). > > Even with older browsers, I don't see it being super significant - > 1-2% at most if it's even measurable. The execution of the javascript > code by the interpreter should far outweigh the cost of tokenizing the > input even if you have a 100 character name. The cost of doing a 100 > byte memcpy should be insignificant compared to all the other stuff > the interpreter must do. However, I could be wrong - I haven't tested > this in any way, so hard numbers from real-world examples would > probably be best. > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Arthur Kalmenson > <arthur.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't know the exact numbers. But if I remember correctly, during > > Bruce's presentation, "Faster-than-Possible Code: Deferred Binding > > with GWT" ( > http://sites.google.com/site/io/faster-than-possible-code-deferred-binding-with-gwt > ) > > at Google I/O 2008, he mentioned something about smaller function and > > variable names executing faster then longer names. > > > > Also, as Vitali said, you're code is going to be rather bloated. We > > were accidentally running one of our apps in PRETTY and found the > > before compression size was 3 MB and after compression was 400kb. When > > we changed to OBF, the before compression size was 500kb and > > compressed was somewhere around 120kb. > > > > What's the reason that you want to run it as PRETTY? If you want to > > make the functions callable from regular JS, you should take a look at > > Ray Cromwell's excellent GWT Exporter project: > > http://code.google.com/p/gwt-exporter/ > > > > -- > > Arthur Kalmenson > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Vitali Lovich <vlov...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I believe that it should be the same performance in terms of > >> execution. You're download times will probably suffer - I wouldn't be > >> surprised if the code bloats by 2-3x if not more. > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Dobes <dob...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm considering deploying a version in PRETTY mode since it may solve > >>> a Safari 4 issue I'm having and it would also allow me to interpret > >>> the stack traces produced by Firefox a lot better. > >>> > >>> However, I'm wondering what experiences people have had with the > >>> performance of PRETTY more - how is it? > >>> > >>> Thanks in advance, > >>> Dobes > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dobes Vandermeer Director, Habitsoft Inc. dob...@habitsoft.com 778-891-2922 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
