On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 22:53:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 21:08:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 10:04:58 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 09:56:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 06:18:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> It is translatable to pure assembly, addressing is modulo heap size. Performance is a different issue since it does not provide SIMD yet.
>>>
>>> SIMD is not even remotely close to explaining the perf difference.
>>
>> What browser? Only FF supports it. Chrome just JIT it IIRC.
>
> asm.js typically runs half the speed of natively compiled code. pNaCl run about 20% slower typically.
>
> The gap is way to big for vectorization to be a reasonable explanation. In fact a large body of code just do not vectorize at all.
>
> You seems to be fixated on that vectorization thing, when it is not even remotely close to the problem at hand.

All of this could have been avoided by all browser vendors agreeing to implement pNaCl.
Maybe we'll be lucky and Firefox will fade into obscurity with the way they've been handling things lately.

On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:26:49 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
> Maybe we'll be lucky and Firefox will fade into obscurity with the way they've been handling things lately.

No. TurboFan is in Chrome with asm.js support.

On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:34:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:26:49 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>> Maybe we'll be lucky and Firefox will fade into obscurity with the way they've been handling things lately.
>
> No. TurboFan is in Chrome with asm.js support.

I'd rather not advocate the adoption of inferior technology.

On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:40:32 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
> On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:34:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:26:49 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>>> Maybe we'll be lucky and Firefox will fade into obscurity with the way they've been handling things lately.
>>
>> No. TurboFan is in Chrome with asm.js support.
>
> I'd rather not advocate the adoption of inferior technology.

It has already been adopted by Microsoft, Google and Mozilla...

On 2015-09-04 15:39, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com> wrote:

> Err... avoid WebStorm. Just noticed JetBrains have decided to rip off
> their customers with a subscription model and increase their pricing
> 100%. Damn, I'm going back to OpenSource IDEs…

I heard the TypeScript support for Visual Studio Code is really good.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:43:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:40:32 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:34:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:26:49 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>>>> Maybe we'll be lucky and Firefox will fade into obscurity with the way they've been handling things lately.
>>>
>>> No. TurboFan is in Chrome with asm.js support.
>>
>> I'd rather not advocate the adoption of inferior technology.
>
> It has already been adopted by Microsoft, Google and Mozilla...

Because it has the path of least resistance. It's still a poor technology that is just treating the symptoms.

On 5 Sep 2015 12:32 am, "rsw0x via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 22:53:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 21:08:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 10:04:58 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 09:56:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 06:18:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is translatable to pure assembly, addressing is modulo heap size.
Performance is a different issue since it does not provide SIMD yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SIMD is not even remotely close to explaining the perf difference.
>>>
>>>
>>> What browser? Only FF supports it. Chrome just JIT it IIRC.
>>
>>
>> asm.js typically runs half the speed of natively compiled code. pNaCl
run about 20% slower typically.
>>
>> The gap is way to big for vectorization to be a reasonable explanation.
In fact a large body of code just do not vectorize at all.
>>
>> You seems to be fixated on that vectorization thing, when it is not even
remotely close to the problem at hand.
>
>
> All of this could have been avoided by all browser vendors agreeing to
implement pNaCl.
> Maybe we'll be lucky and Firefox will fade into obscurity with the way
they've been handling things lately.

What I don't get is, Firefox and ie support plugins... Why isn't there a pnacl plugin for other browsers? Surely it could be added with the existing plugin interfaces?

On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:45:39 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
> Because it has the path of least resistance. It's still a poor technology that is just treating the symptoms.

pnacl/pepper is not good either, they are both poor technologies.

But vendors are moving in the same direction, which is important, and compilers are improving each release. What matters most is getting something that is 3x+ faster than javascript when you need it, cross browser. Fortunately, Apple seems to take is seriously too, which is important, iOS Safari is a critical platform.

On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:53:06 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2015 12:32 am, "rsw0x via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
> wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
> Performance is a different issue since it does not provide SIMD yet.
>>> [...]
> run about 20% slower typically.
>>> [...]
> In fact a large body of code just do not vectorize at all.
>>> [...]
> remotely close to the problem at hand.
>> [...]
> implement pNaCl.
>> [...]
> they've been handling things lately.
>
> What I don't get is, Firefox and ie support plugins... Why isn't there a pnacl plugin for other browsers? Surely it could be added with the existing plugin interfaces?

Mozilla flat out stated they have no intention of supporting pNaCl. I'm sure a third party could make a plugin to support it.

On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:53:06 UTC, Manu wrote:
> What I don't get is, Firefox and ie support plugins... Why isn't there a pnacl plugin for other browsers? Surely it could be added with the existing plugin interfaces?

Actually, browsers are deprecating NPAPI plugins. Flash is so dead…