Why is it that most of Arthurs posts either have incorrect information or one of :
"I haven't tried it but I think.." "I don't know the exact numbers but.." "I heard that xxx is good / bad but I haven't tried it.." "I think.." Just search the forums. Half-knowledge more dangerous than ignorance. Just a word of caution to new users on this forum. On Apr 19, 10:53 pm, Arthur Kalmenson <arthur.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just listened to the talk - didn't hear him say anything regarding > > performance of long name vs short names. > > Oops, guess it wasn't that one, although that presentation did rock > :P. I watched it a year ago, so my memory is rather vague there. > > > 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. > > That's true, but any performance gain is good. Anyway, the main > disadvantage of going with PRETTY is that your application ends up > being larger so the initial start up is slower. > > -- > Arthur Kalmenson > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:46 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 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
