Re: Intent to implement: Early, experimental support for application/javascript+binast

On 2018-04-18 19:13, David Teller wrote: No plans yet, but it's a good idea. The only reason not to do this (that I can think of) is that we might prefer switching to the Bytecode Cache, which would probably give us even better speed ups. I understand that we can't use the Bytecode Cache for

Re: Intent to implement: Early, experimental support for application/javascript+binast

No plans yet, but it's a good idea. The only reason not to do this (that I can think of) is that we might prefer switching to the Bytecode Cache, which would probably give us even better speed ups. I understand that we can't use the Bytecode Cache for our chrome code yet due to the fact that it

Re: Intent to implement: Early, experimental support for application/javascript+binast

This is awesome. I understand that we already do some kind of pre-compile for our chrome code, is there any plan/benefit to switch to this eventually there? On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:50 AM David Teller wrote: > # Summary > > JavaScript parsing and compilation are

Intent to implement: Early, experimental support for application/javascript+binast

# Summary JavaScript parsing and compilation are performance bottlenecks. The JavaScript Binary AST is a domain-specific content encoding for JavaScript, designed to speed up parsing and compilation of JavaScript, as well as to allow streaming compilation of JavaScript (and possibly streaming