On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Peter van der Zee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Robin Campbell Joy <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> are faster than 10ms after a few thousand calls. Does anyone knows >> what is going on here? >> > > While I don't know what's going on, I would like you point you to links > posted earlier which explain that timing in js is dodgy at best. There is a > web timing (or whatever it's name is now) proposal being implemented in the > new browser versions. But as it stands you can't really trust classic timers > up to the millisecond. > - peter
Thank you Peter. I'm aware of the timer problem in JS, I'm just confused about the results. I expected the timer to takes longer, but not that it will be faster than the minimum delay specified. Anyway as this bugs me I fetched a copy of the JS engine source and will have a look at the implementation. Hopefully that will shed some light on it. - Robin -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
