On 29/11/14 16:00, Dominic Evans wrote:
Yeah I should probably have been a bit more communicative about it, but
I'm a bit obsessive and kept on adding "just one more thing" :-D .
Rafael pulling what I had onto master was kind of the kick I needed...
I'm looking forward to checking this out now it has dropped into master. It
was only when you recently posted on the mailing list about it that I knew
it was in development. Thanks for the instructions to get up and running
with it too.
As well as needing to get the Node.js net module support in emscripten
sorted out another thing on my TODO list is to look at the latest swig
the swig and emscripten approaches are complementary rather than
competing, the swig approach is only ever going to work on things like
Node.js not a browser, but it might eke a little extra performance.
Will be interesting to compare the nodejs enscripten performance vs a
swig-based proton-c nodejs addon too.
influenced by the performance of the runtime. From what I've noticed
from casual observation the asm.js optimisations in recent Firefox
builds make a real difference though. FF 33 looks like it has more than
double the throughput of the version of V8 running on Node.js 0.10.33, I
need to try it out with Chrome to see if there's a difference there. An
interesting "wet finger" is that my test on FF 33 using the pure
same ballpark as the msgr-send.py, which obviously uses the swigged
native C proton-c. I've not really properly compared apples with apples
or anything but it empirically suggests that there might not be toooooo
much gain using a swig based proton-c Node.js (well once V8 uses asm.js).
I must admit that I'm quite pleased with the way it has turned out,
emscripten definitely ranks up there as one of my favourite things in
the world of software - it really appeals to my twisted sense of the