Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Resig on TraceMonkey

ejohn.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#11

Post by tokipin »

gruseom wrote: post #9
invisible wrote: post #8

I think the key point of this article over the other related article ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=284192 ) is that John points out that tracing will be able to be applied to DOM manipulation/property access in the future. "Being able to trace through a DOM method would successfully speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation and property acces…

speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation Agreed. The sooner they get to that, the better! Edit: As an aside, the web arguably wouldn't have happened without "stealing code". I see this as a strength not a weakness.

true, but it's not as straightforward when the things you're stealing are whole applications

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#12

Post by MaysonL »

andreyf wrote: post #10
tokipin wrote: post #7

check out Steve Yegge's video/transcript about dynamic language optimization in case you missed it: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-st...

Things have been moving in this direction for quite some time, I think. Here's a master's thesis from March 2006: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~plezbert/contcom/

Michael Franz, the PI for the work at UCI, has been working on this stuff for almost 20 years. See his 1994 PHD thesis: Code-Generation On-the-Fly ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/pub/publications/diss/th10497.ps [postscript]. Reading it was one of my "Holy Shit!" moments.

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#13

Post by invisible »

gruseom wrote: post #9
invisible wrote: post #8

I think the key point of this article over the other related article ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=284192 ) is that John points out that tracing will be able to be applied to DOM manipulation/property access in the future. "Being able to trace through a DOM method would successfully speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation and property acces…

speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation Agreed. The sooner they get to that, the better! Edit: As an aside, the web arguably wouldn't have happened without "stealing code". I see this as a strength not a weakness.

I'm not against open sourcing code, or giving away helpful small things, but at the moment anyone can copy every bit of useful functionality of a JS application and just create their own back-end. That is a very ridiculous concept, and there isn't much that can be done about it if that person isn't within the same country.

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#14

Post by jeresig »

KirinDave wrote: post #4

Has anyone run a comparison between this new engine and SquirrelFish yet? It seems to me like two major ideas are competing: 1. Better JIT for interpreters. 2. Faster interpreters, period. I'm really curious to see which has the faster ramp-up and which has the best end-game results.

One comparison was posted in the comments of the blog post: http://www.masonchang.com/2008/08/tracemonkey-vs-squirrelfis...

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#15

Post by thwarted »

invisible wrote: post #13
gruseom wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation Agreed. The sooner they get to that, the better! Edit: As an aside, the web arguably wouldn't have happened without "stealing code". I see this as a strength not a weakness.

I'm not against open sourcing code, or giving away helpful small things, but at the moment anyone can copy every bit of useful functionality of a JS application and just create their own back-end. That is a very ridiculous concept, and there isn't much that can be done about it if that person isn't within the same country.

It might be more valuable to avoid basing your business on artificial scarcity to begin with.

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#16

Post by invisible »

thwarted wrote: post #15
invisible wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against open sourcing code, or giving away helpful small things, but at the moment anyone can copy every bit of useful functionality of a JS application and just create their own back-end. That is a very ridiculous concept, and there isn't much that can be done about it if that person isn't within the same country.

It might be more valuable to avoid basing your business on artificial scarcity to begin with.

Well, I guess if the business model were to not make a significant amount of money then no scarcity would be perfect! But really, scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold).

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#17

Post by ph0rque »

invisible wrote: post #16
thwarted wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be more valuable to avoid basing your business on artificial scarcity to begin with.

Well, I guess if the business model were to not make a significant amount of money then no scarcity would be perfect! But really, scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold).

> scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold).

Not true: see 37signals, for example.

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#18

Post by invisible »

ph0rque wrote: post #17
invisible wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I guess if the business model were to not make a significant amount of money then no scarcity would be perfect! But really, scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold).

> scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold). Not true: see 37signals, for example.

I think you misunderstand what artificial scarcity means (or I do somehow). 37signals is proof that artificial scarcity must exist in some form to profit. Adding a price to something creates a form of artificial scarcity. From my perspective, you just agreed with me.

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#19

Post by thwarted »

invisible wrote: post #16
thwarted wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be more valuable to avoid basing your business on artificial scarcity to begin with.

Well, I guess if the business model were to not make a significant amount of money then no scarcity would be perfect! But really, scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold).

The real scarcity is your time and reputation, which in the right combination can command a significant amount of money. Attempting to limit what can not be limited is creating scarcity where there is none, and it is only a matter of time until someone breaks your business model by figuring out that you've been attempting to control the uncontrollable. And that'll happen just at the point when you're dependent on it and unable to change. For a case study, see the RIAA.

Re: John Resig on TraceMonkey

#20

Post by thwarted »

invisible wrote: post #18
ph0rque wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold). Not true: see 37signals, for example.

I think you misunderstand what artificial scarcity means (or I do somehow). 37signals is proof that artificial scarcity must exist in some form to profit. Adding a price to something creates a form of artificial scarcity. From my perspective, you just agreed with me.

Artificial scarcity is trying to limit access to something which can not be limited. Once bits, for any purpose, are put in the right order to do something or represent something, the cost to replicate those bits to other parties is zero. In contrast with an automobile, even after it is designed, significant infrastructure (currently) needs to be built and exist to create another one. What you are paying for when you purchase a car is the PROCESS that went into creating JUST that ONE car you bought. Additional cars would not exist if the infrastructure didn't exist to create more of them (and then economies of scale come into play, making the car actually affordable). Bits do not have that limitation.

Scarcity and want must exist in order to set a legitimate price. Artificial scarcity sets a price on something that isn't actually scarce. It is a (unfortunate?) side-effect of the market that potential buyers think that because something has a price, it must be worth having (ie scarce). I don't think there's actually anything wrong with basing a business on this, but don't be surprised when your customers realize you've been selling them something that should have a price closer to zero because there is infinite supply.

Post reply on HN