On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:36:54 PM UTC-7, Kees Bos wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 22:21 -0700, Sarvi Shanmugham wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:42:19 PM UTC-7, Kees Bos wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 20:29 -0700, Sarvi Shanmugham wrote:
> > > I tried to hack a bit to simplify the generated code to see
> > how it can
> > > be done and this is what I got.
> > > I left the $ alone for the reasons Lex mentioned. Turned
> > the
> > > dictionary accesses into object notation and
> >
> > That looks cleaner, but inhibits the use of closure compiler,
> > since that
> > will mangle object attributes (at high optimization).
> > would you refering me to something that explains this? I am relative
> > noob with this stuff.
> >
> It's somewhere in the docs or command line help. This is the issue (from
> memory) after running closure compiler:
> foo.something gets compressed to foo.XX
> foo['something'] becomes foo.something
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I did a little bit more reading at
https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-tutorial3
A couple of things.
1. Is foo.something --> foo.XX really a problem. From what I can tell as
long as its usage is consistent across the code we should be fine.
Also does all the other javascript frameworks use foo['something']
to avoid this issue?
Infact the compiler advanced optimization documentation suggests
suggests the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Consistent dot notation Vs quoted strings as a solution here
https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-tutorial3#propnames
2. Closure advanced optimization does the inlining during compilation
and hence the performance should be comparable on all browsers.
I tried the following code at
function dumult(x,y) {
return x*y;
}
function multiply(x,y) {
return (typeof x == typeof y && typeof x=='number')?x*y:dumult(x,y);
}
function hello(name) {
var i;
var j;
i=10;
j=20;
i=multiply(i,j);
alert('Hello, ' + name + i);
}
hello('New user');
It got optimized to, Wow!! :-))
var a;a=10;a*=20;alert("Hello, New user"+a);
Another complaint I've read about pyjamas is size of generated code
https://blogs-pyjeon.rhcloud.com/?p=302
And I am reading about closure tool doing dead code removal
Shouldn't that be trimming simple applications to the minimum code?
I am guessing people have tried this. What is the feedback?
Should closure be integrated into the pyjs compile/build process?
Sarvi
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Pyjs.org Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
