Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
1–10 of 179 posts
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#2Seems like the tl;dr is that v8 and spidermonkey need to work on adding more optimization tiers to their wasm piplines
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#3I never expected WebAssembly to be as fast as native only to be significantly faster than JavaScript.
Considering the popularity of Electron, if WebAssembly does get as fast as native or at least 80% there (and that's a really big if) it would easily become the cross platform language for the vast majority of desktop applications.
For mobile we will always be dragged down by Apple and its reticence to embrace web technologies. It's 2019 and we can't even show a add to home screen native banner.
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#4Seems like the tl;dr is that v8 and spidermonkey need to work on adding more optimization tiers to their wasm piplines
Another tl;dr is that if you care about WebAssembly performance, use Firefox.
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#5Seems like the tl;dr is that v8 and spidermonkey need to work on adding more optimization tiers to their wasm piplines
Another tl;dr is that if you care about WebAssembly performance, use Firefox.
> if you care about WebAssembly performance, use Firefox
Unless you have customers or want them, because Firefox's market share is generally too small to base your entire business around.
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#6The paper is comparing to native. How does it WASM compare to Javascript?
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#7Compilation speed should be part of the benchmarks, as it's critical for WebASM. The best would be to use the Clang optimization setting with the most similar compilation speed to compare runtime speeds.
As an example the article mentions suboptimal register allocation, but without compile time comparision there's no way to know if there really is a simple way to improve WebGL implementation.
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another tl;dr is that if you care about WebAssembly performance, use Firefox.
> if you care about WebAssembly performance, use Firefox Unless you have customers or want them, because Firefox's market share is generally too small to base your entire business around.
I think it was meant that YOU, as a single human being, should use firefox
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#9I never expected WebAssembly to be as fast as native only to be significantly faster than JavaScript. Considering the popularity of Electron, if WebAssembly does get as fast as native or at least 80% there (and that's a really big if) it would easily become the cross platform language for the vast majority of desktop applications. For mobile we will always be dragged down by Apple and its reticence to embrace web tec…
> can't even show a add to home screen native banner.
That sounds like a feature.
Re: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another tl;dr is that if you care about WebAssembly performance, use Firefox.
> if you care about WebAssembly performance, use Firefox Unless you have customers or want them, because Firefox's market share is generally too small to base your entire business around.
In the old days there were websites using flash or silverlight and they had a screen "in order to use this you must use flash" and for some reason, people did download and install flash so that they could watch the cat videos or whatever.