just to extra-simplify: you can build=debug and build=release ... is there any plan to be able to build=release that script? 'cause otherwise I'll spend some time creating a script that does inline analysis and optimizations at runtime for slower devices and/or production.
Thanks for further answers, if any. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < [email protected]> wrote: > I believe one of the benefits on having Typed Objects is to have more > performant objects and collections of objects, as structs have been since > basically ever in C. > > In this case, a full-specs polyfill, as the one pointed out in this > thread, is a very nice to have but it will inevitably slow down everything > in production compared to vanilla JS objects for every not ever-green > device/browser unable to optimize these objects/structs. > > Accordingly, I wonder if there is any plan to make that polyfill able to > ignore everything in production and do just the most essential work in > order to not slow down already slow browsers in already slow devices > (Android 2.3 but also FirefoxOS and ZTE ...) > > As example, in 2007 I've proposed a "strict version of JavaScript" > http://devpro.it/code/157.html > > Explained here: > http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2007/05/javastrict-strict-type-arguments.html > > And with a single flag to false, all checks were disappearing from > production in order to do not slow down things useful for developers only > (as a polyfill for StructType would be) but not for browsers unable to > optimize those references/objects/statically defined "things" > > So my question was: is there any plan to be able to mark that polyfill in > a way that all checks are ignored and just essentials operations are > granted in order to trust the exposed behavior, without slowing down all > non compatible browsers with all that logic ? > > Or better: is there any plan to offer a simplified version for production > that does not do everything as full-specs native would do? > > I hope this is more clear, thanks for any answer. > > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Niko Matsakis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:46:30AM -0800, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: >> > if it's about experimenting then `with(TypedObject) {}` would do :P >> > >> > Any chance there will be a way to bypass most of the stuff for >> production? >> >> Sorry I don't understand the question. >> >> >> Niko >> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
