Hi, > I'm not sure it is always one-off. I think every function call will need > to initialize its local variables.
Yep that may also need to be done in some cases. > Also, we have to remember that the final optimization is done by Google > and not us. We are type annotating the output and they and/or the browser > runtimes may also someday optimize and auto convert "==" to "===" where it > can. And it may do further optimisations where you use === rather than ==. Other than hyperticals do you have any data to show that it does this? > So it isn't clear to me that we have to manually go through and > replace our use of '==‘. In a real application making those changes in a small part of the code changed time spent sorting out css values from 30ms to 5ms. Can you explain why is that is not worth pursuing? > Something the compiler could do is flag areas in the code where type > information is lacking. That kind of thing may have greater impact on the > final performance. It may or may not - do you have data showing this? We have data that clearly shows === and !== are faster than their counterparts. Why would you not want to use them where it make sense? I see if I can make some tests around setting to null so we have real data on that. Thanks, Justin
