Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Years of effort have gone into making javascript VMs faster than they have any right to be. Even an ideal bytecode would likely be slower than javascript for years. It seems unlikely that many people would be willing to give up performance now for theoretical future performance, and without a reasonable amount of use, there's no good reason for browsers to implement the new bytecode.

For better or for worse, we're stuck with javascript for the foreseeable future.



Even an ideal bytecode would likely be slower than javascript for years -- no, statically-typed bytecode should be significantly faster than dynamically-typed JavaScript (both in execution and parsing time), IMHO.


I agree that makes intuitive sense, but the article mentions numbers showing the opposite is true in some cases.


Isn't LLVM already faster than asm.js in most cases?


The question makes no sense. Emscripten even uses LLVM, so this comparison is recursive.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: