I can definitely confirm that with the closure compiler enabled the compiled size drops on the few apps I've tried it on, on the order of 5-15% (no hard and fast numbers yet, working on such a writeup now). I can confirm both a performance and size improvement with turning off cast checking, but I ran those tests around two years ago, and was mostly targeting IE6/7/8 and around Firefox 3 or 3.6.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Paul Stockley <pstockl...@gmail.com> wrote: > One thing I will be interested to see is the effect > of enableClosureCompiler=true. It does significantly reduce the JS file > size in many cases. However, I have read people complaining that the > resulting code was slower. > > > On Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:53:21 AM UTC-5, Fabiano Tarlao wrote: >> >> >> >> Il giorno giovedì 7 febbraio 2013 16:14:32 UTC+1, Paul Stockley ha >> scritto: >>> >>> For sure we release production code with the following flags >>> >>> >>> - <disableCastChecking>true</**disableCastChecking> >>> - <disableClassMetadata>true</**disableClassMetadata> >>> >>> >>> Also you don't specify what version of IE you are testing with, I assume >>> IE9 >>> >> >> The graph leged doesn't specify, but I have pointed the IE version in the >> blog post, it is IE9 >> >> Why do tou disable "for sure" that option? Is it for perfromance? What is >> exactly sure in disablinng Cast checking? >> >> Regards >> >> >> >>> >>> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:10:54 AM UTC-5, Fabiano Tarlao wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> in fact I have not specied not used particular optimization arguments. >>>> I have not disabled CastChecking and ClassMetadata, and I have not >>>> explicitly set the optimization level (but the default is the maximum >>>> value). >>>> By using defaults my current configuration is: >>>> >>>> >>>> *GWT Compiler Arguments - * >>>> >>>> - <disableCastChecking>false</**disableCastChecking> >>>> - <disableClassMetadata>false</**disableClassMetadata> >>>> - <enableClosureCompiler>false</**enableClosureCompiler> >>>> - <optimizationLevel>9</**optimizationLevel> >>>> >>>> *GWT module options in .gwt.xml* >>>> <set-property name="compiler.stackMode" value="native" /> >>>> >>>> About the first two options, I dunno know If it is correct to disable >>>> them in order to do a fair comparison. I suppose that those features should >>>> be useful in a real production enviroment, am I right?What is you opinion? >>>> >>>> The only option I'm going to enable in the next benchmark update is >>>> the new enableClosureCompiler. >>>> I'm open to suggetions and criticism. >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> Il giorno mercoledì 6 febbraio 2013 10:21:46 UTC+1, Sachin Shekhar R ha >>>> scritto: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure whether you turned on all GWT compiler arguments and >>>>> some turn off some Dev specific GWT features. >>>>> >>>>> *GWT Compiler Arguments - * >>>>> >>>>> - <disableCastChecking>true</**disableCastChecking> >>>>> - <disableClassMetadata>true</**disableClassMetadata> >>>>> - <enableClosureCompiler>true</**enableClosureCompiler> >>>>> - <optimizationLevel>9</**optimizationLevel> >>>>> >>>>> *GWT module options in .gwt.xml* >>>>> >>>>> - <set-property name="compiler.stackMode" value="strip" /> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, February 3, 2013 6:20:40 AM UTC+5:30, Fabiano Tarlao wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> I have wrote a simple benchmark suite in java and I have run with >>>>>> JavaSE 1.7.0 and, thanks to GWT, I have run the same code on >>>>>> Firefox,Chrome,MSIE and Opera. >>>>>> >>>>>> My results, with the experiment details are published >>>>>> here:http://thegoodcodeinn. >>>>>> **blogspot.it/2013/02/gwt-**benchmarks-gwtjsvm-vs-javavm.**html<http://thegoodcodeinn.blogspot.it/2013/02/gwt-benchmarks-gwtjsvm-vs-javavm.html> >>>>>> >>>>>> You know, Javascript VM have highly improved recently but how good is >>>>>> GWT at compiling java into Javascript? And.. how efficient is the GWT >>>>>> compiled code+JsVM compared to Java bytecode running on a Java Virtual >>>>>> Machine?? >>>>>> I was just curious about. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope you like this experiment, comments are appreciated. >>>>>> Have fun >>>>>> >>>>>> Fabiano >>>>>> >>>>>> PS: >>>>>> My benchmark is oriented to numeric, data crunching; no multimedia. >>>>>> I'll also release the benchmark code later.. if requested. I'm only a >>>>>> bit lazy at the moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Web Toolkit" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 218.248.6165 niloc...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
