> And yes, I've used SQLite wasm version too ... as a matter of fact, it's going to be a great lazy-loaded thing for my next project, 'cause it's 1MB overhead, so not something to really promote in the wild, imho 😅
sqlite's homepage claims: "our best guess is that SQLite is the second mostly widely deployed software library, after libz" [1]. whether true or not, i think we can agree its an ubiquitous (and hopefully well-understood) piece of software library. i know its not a tc39 thing, but perhaps some of its members who are also implementers would consider making wasm-sqlite3 a 3rd-party browser "builtin" (like libz/ffmpeg/libpng, but as sandboxed-wasm exposed to userland) to improve its loading-performance. -kai [1] Most Widely Deployed and Used Database Engine https://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 5:26 PM Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Given your history I know better than to assume what you know… > > I've no idea what you are talking about, but this should be no venue for > these kind of answers. > > My history in this thread explained the proposal, the intent, and linked > all the facts around it, and before your pointless answer, so please keep > your biases for yourself. > > Thank you. > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:13 PM Michael Haufe <t...@thenewobjective.com> > wrote: > >> Given your history I know better than to assume what you know… >> >> >> >> The definition of sparse in the spec (while not explicitly in its own >> section) is straightforward. >> >> >> >> V8’s inability or unwillingness to perform a safe “upcast” internally to >> an appropriate tag doesn’t seem to provide enough weight to introduce a new >> construct. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2020 2:26 PM >> *To:* Michael Haufe <t...@thenewobjective.com> >> *Cc:* Bergi <a.d.be...@web.de>; es-discuss@mozilla.org >> *Subject:* Re: Yet another attempt at typed JS data >> >> >> >> Great, now maybe you also read how it works behind the scene, and debug >> properly to understand that every array is holey, including the latter one, >> to date. >> >> >> >> https://v8.dev/blog/elements-kinds >> >> >> >> Please, let's assume for a second I knew what I was talking about, when >> I've said it's a mess to not have holey arrays, thanks. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 9:21 PM Michael Haufe <t...@thenewobjective.com> >> wrote: >> >> Array(3) >> // [empty × 3] >> >> Array(3).fill() >> // [undefined, undefined, undefined] >> >> Array(3).fill('whatever') >> // ["whatever", "whatever", "whatever"] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: es-discuss <es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org> On Behalf Of Bergi >> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:27 PM >> To: es-discuss@mozilla.org >> Subject: Re: Yet another attempt at typed JS data >> >> Hello! >> >> > Unfortunately, `Array.from({ length: 4 }, () => whatever)` produces a >> > holey array >> >> Does it? But really, if the performance difference betweeen HOLEY and >> PACKED arrays were large enough to be relevant[1], the engine programmers >> would certainly already have optimised all those trivial cases where an >> array is filled gradually to produce the more efficient representation. >> >> kind regards, >> Bergi >> >> [1]: it probably isn't: >> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54481918/#comment95848513_54485509 >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
