Not throwing errors, but whether adding an event listener to the "error" influences performance without even throwing errors. I just do not know...
☆*PhistucK* On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Yang Guo <[email protected]> wrote: > Throwing errors typically are not and should not be on the critical path > of any Javascript program. Therefore it makes no sense to add complexity to > make this faster. > > Cheers, > > Yang > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:03:55 PM UTC+2, PhistucK wrote: >> >> I am not really sure about how to test it, but I guess you know more >> about it. >> >> Browsers support the "error" (window.onerror or >> window.addEventListener("error", ...)) event, which, if you call >> e.preventDefault() and the like, apparently catches the exception (I could >> not get it to work for some reason when I tried in the console, though). >> >> I was thinking about the potential performance gains of adding {passive: >> true} support for this event - can it simplify some checks and yield (even) >> better performance when using the event? Will the V8 engine benefit from >> that in some way (for example, fire it not immediately if it knows there is >> more code to run at the moment, or something similar, batching and so on)? >> >> Again, I do not know whether there is even any performance implication to >> adding an "error" event listener, you probably know more. >> >> Just an idea. >> >> >> >> ☆*PhistucK* >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > -- -- v8-users mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
