On 4 Feb 2011 David J. Ruck wrote: > On 04/02/2011 11:42, Richard Porter wrote: >> The NetSurf web site says: >> >> "Efficiency lies at the heart of the NetSurf engine, allowing it to >> outwit the heavyweights of the web browser world. The NetSurf team >> continue to squeeze more speed out of their code." >> >> I've been doing one or two comparisons on a 300MHz Kinetic RiscPC >> running OS 6.16. >> >> Test 1 - following a link to near the bottom of a thumbnail index.
> [snip] >> Test 2 - following a link to the latest forum post from the "top 10" >> latest posts page. > [snip] > How about URLs so people can see what those pages contain? Such as CCS > elements which the older browsers will just ignore. Test 1 has no CSS or javascript. Test 2 has some inline style elements and javascript (http://www.minimarcos.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?,b= MM,v=display,m=1296606335,s=4,highlight=#num4). I don't think the javascript contributes to the formatting of the page - it's more concerned with confirming delete requests, which obviously doesn't work in NS. >> Now obviously there's a big advantage in coding in assembler for a >> specific processor family rather than using C and making the code >> portable > Coding in assembler is a big disadvantage for any sizeable amount of > code. You wont find any modern web browser written in assembler, it > would be insane. According to Rob the older browsers were written in C anyway, so that's not a factor. I agree entirely with your second sentence for a whole raft of reasons, but execution speed isn't one of them. -- Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
