fore more information on TranceMonkey pleasecheck http://ejohn.org/blog/tracemonkey/
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I realized from this ParagraphJOhn said : "We already see TraceMonkey > (under development for about 2 months) performing better than V8 (under > development for about 2 years)." > > maybe TranceMonkey it is going to be better that V8 but as you all know it > has it's own problems right now > > john Said : "The biggest thing holding TraceMonkey back, at this point, > is its recursion tracing. As of this moment no tracing is done across > recursive calls (which puts TraceMonkey as being about 10x slower than V8 at > recursion). Once recursion tracing lands for Firefox 3.1 I'll be sure to > revisit the above results." > Um it depends how you think .. everyone can pick what ever they prefer ... > I hope this was useful > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:14 AM, timothytoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> I read the linked article, and did not interpret it the way you did. >> Certainly John does not come right out and say that TraceMonkey is >> much better, and he probably knows that if he did, we'd take it with a >> grain of salt since he works for Mozilla. (Note, though, that John >> isn't on the TraceMonkey team as far as I can tell--I think he's >> plenty busy with his other duties.) >> >> I think he's excited by ALL the JS developments. >> >> On Sep 3, 4:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8 >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Dana Woodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better than V8 >> > > (despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you >> wrote >> > > wrong? >> > >> > > On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >> > > Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which John >> Resig >> > > performed >> > > <http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/> >> > >http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/ >> > > it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and >> his >> > > partners are working with TraceMonkey >> > > and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and they will >> > > import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1 Tracemonkey >> is >> > > BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we have to check our >> > > websites with CHrome and validate it .... >> > > Regards Pedram >> > >> > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser < <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> Bil Corry wrote: >> > >> > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to. >> Guy >> > >> > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate >> > >> > networks." If that is the case, then the fact that Google will >> also >> > >> > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't >> hurt >> > >> > either (from Google's perspective). I was subtly suggesting that >> > >> > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some >> revenue, >> > >> > it may also be intentional. It'll be interesting to see if Google >> > >> > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice >> users >> > >> > to switch to Chrome. >> > >> > >> Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at >> > >> least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced >> recently. >> > >> > >> From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs >> > >> IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by default >> on >> > >> intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die. >> > >> > >> With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather >> > >> than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong >> > >> incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and remainder >> of >> > >> MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just >> > >> can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed. >> > >> > >> Guy >> > >
