On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clearly, we still have a long way to go before beating a C++ parser. > Pretty interesting to think about, though. > This comparison, while quite informative, isn't a full answer to the question at hand, for at least two reasons: For startup speed, the syntax parsing mode is more important, because that is the one that gets run over the whole file before anything executes. The full parser only kicks in for functions that are actually executed. (Well, there are some features that force us on a slow, full-parsing path, but they don't apply here.) I'm pretty sure if you use `syntaxParse` instead of `parse`, that'll somewhat widen the gap. (In a quick test, `syntaxParse` is about 40% faster for the test file.) On the other hand, the Acorn parser probably does a lot more work than the builtin one: I didn't look into it, but my guess is that it builds and returns an AST, so it has to create a substantial graph of JS objects in addition to parsing the source. I'm not sure how easy it'd be to hack Acorn to just do the parsing, but if doable, that'd probably close the gap considerably. > > (Also, as a side note, should this be profiled for SpiderMonkey? V8 is > averaging about 10x native, SpiderMonkey about 3-5x V8. My spidey > senses sense a growing gap...;-)) > By all our tests (and external ones that I'm aware of) we've all but closed the gap; check http://arewefastyet.com. This test case is quite interesting, though - I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1078273 to investigate.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
