A while back I was doing some performance tests and my recollection was, for that application, in FF2, it was something like 10% slower in PRETTY. This was with GWT 1.4. Not a lot, but just enough that I decided not to performance test in PRETTY.
(The big performance impact in FF2 is if Firebug is completely disabled or not. Firebug must be completely disabled (via Tools/ Addons) with a FF restart to get the real numbers (plus just about everything looks like it has a memory leak with Firebug on)) John On Apr 19, 10:20 am, Dobes Vandermeer <dob...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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-bi... > > ) > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
