Revamped WebKit JavaScript Engine Doubles In Speed

Shin-LaC writes "In a post on their official blog, WebKit developers introduced the 'next generation' of their JavaScript engine, SquirrelFish Extreme, claimed to be twice as fast as its predecessor. The post lists several changes contributing to the performance improvements, including 'bytecode optimization,' a 'polymorphic inline cache' (which sounds similar to V8's 'hidden class transitions'), and a 'context threaded JIT' compiler which generates native code (currently only for x86 processors), and is also applied to regular expressions. The new JavaScript engine is already available in the latest WebKit nightly builds. According to comparative benchmarks, the new engine is around 35% faster than the V8 engine recently introduced in Google Chrome, and 55% faster than Mozilla's TraceMonkey."

Comments

Re:Faster = more memory?

[martinw89]

No, I will not get off your lawn. Space/speed is a tradeoff. At the moment, we have even bottom of the barrel desktops selling with large amounts of memory. With the eventual rise of 64 bit, expect the amounts to go up even more. There's no reason to avoid taking advantage of this. What's the point of having this huge (seriously, look at the memory difference from now and 10 years ago) amount of memory to just let it sit there, save the occasional multimedia editing task?

As for your game, it seems to be using quite a huge chunk of memory as well. You know, one of the things we've seen in the past few releases of any modern 3D game is that new features seem to increase the already monumental footprint of current games. And hell, I'm using my browser at least 10 times longer a day than I'm playing a game. I want my browser to be snappy, I don't mind not visiting Super Ultra JS Web App 3.6 if I'm going to be playing a resource intensive game. In fact, I probably wouldn't be using my browser at all anyway.

But that last paragraph is just my personal experience, YMMV

Re:Faster = more memory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone using the term "gaming Experience" deserves to have it ruined.

Re:Competition

[Billhead]

Just because NoScript users are loud doesn't make them a majority.

Q!

[AKAImBatman]

I never quite got how its a wonderful thing when Apple and Google cross-subsidize free-as-in-beer Internet browsers but when They Who Must Not Be Named do the same thing its evil, monopolistic, anti-consumer behavior.

You know what I can't believe? I can't believe this crap got modded up. Talk about a disingenuous argument if I ever saw one.

Call me when:

• Microsoft can meet standards they helped develop. You know, simple things like DOM2.
• Microsoft shows an actual interest in progress by supporting the WHATWG rather than rolling out Yet Another Proprietary Platform(TM) like Silverlight.
• Microsoft actually listens to the REAL problems developers are having in their "Open" development process. Best quote I've heard so far? "I tested IE8 the other day and was unable to remove a single [standards support] hack."
• Microsoft doesn't cram their browser down your throat with artificial desktop integration
• Microsoft has their source code for IE available for download
• Microsoft actually accepts patches for their browser

If Microsoft did even HALF of that you could act all high and mighty. But from where I stand, you're just another Microsoft shill. Be gone!!!

Re:Open standards, healthy competition, free softw

[Bogtha]

I never quite got how its a wonderful thing when Apple and Google cross-subsidize free-as-in-beer Internet browsers but when They Who Must Not Be Named do the same thing its evil, monopolistic, anti-consumer behavior.

History lesson for people tempted to fall for this troll:

Once upon a time, people sold browsers just like they sold any other piece of software. Netscape were making money licensing their browser for corporate environments. The web, and consequently its leader, Netscape, threatened Microsoft's desktop monopoly. So Microsoft used all the cash they had from selling desktop operating systems, bought a web browser (defrauding that company in the process) and spent lots of money developing it further. Then they gave it away for free, at a massive loss to themselves, to "cut off Netscape's air supply". Still, that wasn't enough to unseat Netscape, so Microsoft went further and bundled it into their operating system too. Now all of a sudden 95% of the people on the planet had Microsoft's browser whether they liked it or not - and Netscape were basically dead.

Microsoft were able to eliminate the competition not because they offered a better product, but because they had a dominant position in another market and were willing to dump their product on the market no matter the cost, to put another company out of business. This is not how capitalism is supposed to work. The free market cannot deal with this situation well. The invisible hand is tied behind its invisible back. So in many countries, abusing a monopoly position in this way is illegal. And that's why Microsoft is vilified here - because they acted like bullies, took something dear to geeks, and shat all over it to make money.

Now that browsers are a commodity, how are Apple and Google harming the browser market with anticompetitive actions? Answer - they aren't. They are actually competing by providing better products. And that's why it's completely different to what Microsoft did.