On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:36:54 PM UTC-7, Kees Bos wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 22:21 -0700, Sarvi Shanmugham wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:42:19 PM UTC-7, Kees Bos wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 20:29 -0700, Sarvi Shanmugham wrote:
> > > I tried to hack a bit to simplify the generated code to see
> > how it can
> > > be done and this is what I got.
> > > I left the $ alone for the reasons Lex mentioned. Turned
> > the
> > > dictionary accesses into object notation and
> >
> > That looks cleaner, but inhibits the use of closure compiler,
> > since that
> > will mangle object attributes (at high optimization).
> > would you refering me to something that explains this? I am relative
> > noob with this stuff.
> >
> It's somewhere in the docs or command line help. This is the issue (from
> memory) after running closure compiler:
> foo.something gets compressed to foo.XX
> foo['something'] becomes foo.something
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I did a little bit more reading at
https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-tutorial3
A couple of things.
1. Is foo.something --> foo.XX really a problem. From what I can tell as
long as its usage is consistent across the code we should be fine.
Also does all the other javascript frameworks use foo['something']
to avoid this issue?
Infact the compiler advanced optimization documentation suggests
suggests the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Consistent dot notation Vs quoted strings as a solution here
https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-tutorial3#propnames
2. Closure advanced optimization does the inlining during compilation
and hence the performance should be comparable on all browsers.
I tried the following code at
function dumult(x,y) {
return x*y;
}
function multiply(x,y) {
return (typeof x == typeof y && typeof x=='number')?x*y:dumult(x,y);
}
function hello(name) {
var i;
var j;
i=10;
j=20;
i=multiply(i,j);
alert('Hello, ' + name + i);
}
hello('New user');
It got optimized to, Wow!! :-))
var a;a=10;a*=20;alert("Hello, New user"+a);
Another complaint I've read about pyjamas is size of generated code
https://blogs-pyjeon.rhcloud.com/?p=302
And I am reading about closure tool doing dead code removal
Shouldn't that be trimming simple applications to the minimum code?
I am guessing people have tried this. What is the feedback?
Should closure be integrated into the pyjs compile/build process?
Sarvi
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Pyjs.org Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pyjs-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
