I have been eyeing at replacing the Java Closure version with the JavaScript version of Closure. It is unfortunate that removing Java dependency and speeding up minification performance are at odds against each other, though for our use case, we are considering Closure minification to be a "shipping release" type of activity rather than something one would do in a "development release" iteration builds.
Apart from that, I recommend trying out the emprofile.py toolchain profiler tool to see if some particular hotspots would pop up there. Perhaps there's something that would dominate across the multiple builds that might give ideas to look for further optimizations. to 6. kesäk. 2019 klo 16.34 Alon Zakai ([email protected]) kirjoitti: > > I don't think there is any JS minifier that gives as good results as closure > compiler (advanced, which is what we use). I'm not sure why closure takes as > much time as it does, but it does do a lot of heavy work that no other > minifier even tries to AFAIK (in particular, the potentially-unsafe minifying > of JS object properties). So this is really a question for the larger JS > ecosystem. > > Regarding Java, yes, it would be nice to remove that dependency, and there is > a JS port of Closure. It is not faster though, but it might start up faster, > so on small projects it might be quicker. See this PR: > > https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/pull/5464 > > Help on landing that PR would be very welcome! > > - Alon > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:21 AM Floh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> With all the improvements that have been incorporated into the emscripten >> build process to make builds faster and smaller, I think the Closure pass >> sticks out now like a sore thumb :) >> >> The main problems are IMHO: >> >> - It's slow, my most minimal sokol-sample which has a 51 KByte JS runtime >> (without closure) needs about 11 seconds for a full rebuild with closure >> enabled, and 4.7 seconds without closure but optimizations, and 2.5 seconds >> without closure and optimizations. For a single build target that's not >> much, but for a project with many targets (for instance my sample project >> has about 50 exe targets, which "blows up" to about 4 minutes without >> closure vs 9 minutes with closure). >> >> - It depends on Java, which is becoming more and more an annoyance (see >> Oracles recent steps to take Java hostage, and it's yet another thing that >> must be installed). >> >> On the other hand, Closure really reduces the Javascript runtime file >> dramatically, so it's a crucial step in the build process. >> >> Are there any plans yet to eventually get rid of Closure and replace this >> with something less "annoying"? >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "emscripten-discuss" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/f3531ea7-4b98-4d43-8286-158aa46fd4be%40googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "emscripten-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAEX4NpQq5VGYtN069-rB93chzUSOJV3VDL4H6iKBCbiKwyidiA%40mail.gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CA%2B6sJ-0oi4zknJRmQ4-cU9w-zvhCU4mDbYTLvqF%2B-JaXbC1v-g%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
