On 12/10/11 2:55 AM, Robert Eisele wrote:
It's certainly also more difficult to implement but asking for every frame
to continue has also the disadvantage of beeing as slow as setting up a new
timeout for every frame. That's why setInterval surpass setTimeout's
performance (okay, at least it should).
In theory, yes.
In practice, the actual cost of the requestAnimationFrame call is very
very low. And you have at most one of them per frame, right?
To quantify "very low", by the way, I just tried it in both Chrome and
Firefox over here. On my particular hardware (a laptop that's about 2
years old), it's certainly under 3 microseconds per call.
So I really doubt there's a noticeable performance impact here.
Maybe an API would also make sense, which runs for a given duration.
I could live with something like this, I think, if there are enough use
cases.
-Boris
