> I just listened to the talk - didn't hear him say anything regarding > performance of long name vs short names.
Perhaps the faster execution happens from faster parsing since the names are shorter and faster to read in: http://code.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=55203&topic=10212 -- 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-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 >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
