Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 4's JavaScript Now Faster Than Chrome's

An anonymous reader writes "Firefox 4's JavaScript engine is now faster than V8 (used in Chrome) and Nitro (used in Safari) in the SunSpider benchmark on x86. On Mozilla's test system Nitro completes the benchmark in 369.7 milliseconds, V8 in 356.5 milliseconds, and Firefox 4's TraceMonkey and JaegerMonkey combination in 350.3 milliseconds. Conceivably Tech has a brief rundown of some benchmark figures from their test system obtained with the latest JS preview build of Firefox 4: 'Our AMD Phenom X6-based Dell XPS 7100 PC completed the Sunspider test with the latest Firefox JS (4.0 b8-pre) build in 478.6 ms this morning, while Chrome 8.0.560.0 clocked in at 589.8 ms.' On x86-64 Nitro still has the lead over V8 and TraceMonkey+JaegerMonkey in the SunSpider benchmark."

46 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. FF4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    FF4 crashes when I try to open Gmail since the change. This makes it slower for opening my mail.

    1. connect to gmail with FF4
    2. FF4 crashes.
    3. Open chrome and go to gmail
    4. ??? (train monkeys to joust)
    5. Profit

    1. Re:FF4 by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're an idiot. There's no strict definition of what a beta release is or how often it can be released and, since everybody has a different way of working and putting out releases, there's no way to compare the number of betas to anybody else that produces any meaningful statistic.

    2. Re:FF4 by KingMotley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say quite a few have a beta 6. You are probably used to seeing commercial beta releases which you only see the public betas. I've seen semi-public betas get into the 30's.

  2. 6 milliseconds! Wheee!!! by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll be able to do one more mouse click every three weeks or so.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:6 milliseconds! Wheee!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having good javascript runtimes will help the web go to the next level. This is useful for the gaming industry to tap into the non-gamers and casual gamers pool, e.g. this this port of quake that is able in javascript as a proof of concept:

          http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-port/

      But this can also be useful for non games usage: applications such as google street view and google earth could soon be embedded in regular webapps without the need for flash plugin for instance.

    2. Re:6 milliseconds! Wheee!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not looking forward to 'the next level' of the web. It will only have more dancing and blinking crap on the page.

      Want to make you site fast? You don't need Ajax, Flash, or any other "Hype du Jour". Toss it all out, stick with plain old HTML and make it look decent with simple CSS. Wham, your site is now an order of magnitude faster. You don't need those five load balancers and those twenty application servers just to serve up a page that could easily run on one server when you actually had a clue.

      The Web is rapidly going the way of television: once it was about content, then ads came 'to pay for the content' and now it is all ads with the absolute minimum of content. Spreading a two paragraph article over eight pages just to have more ad impressions. Six pictures that just have to be in a slide show. Ads. Profit. Bottomline.

      Get me a bucket, I'm going to hurl...
       

    3. Re:6 milliseconds! Wheee!!! by Jahava · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not looking forward to 'the next level' of the web. It will only have more dancing and blinking crap on the page.

      Want to make you site fast? You don't need Ajax, Flash, or any other "Hype du Jour". Toss it all out, stick with plain old HTML and make it look decent with simple CSS. Wham, your site is now an order of magnitude faster. You don't need those five load balancers and those twenty application servers just to serve up a page that could easily run on one server when you actually had a clue.

      Want to view content? I agree with your theme in that case, and there are plenty of sites out there that are designed around just that: simple presentation-focused static content display.

      However, most of the impetus for "Web 2.0" has not been around content viewing, but rather about utilizing the web browser as an effective, cross-platform thin client for applications. Now, granted, some sites are (ab)using AJAX and whatnot for purposes ranging from nefarious to just annoying, and there is some spillover from the dynamic application-based web pages into the static information-based ones, but it's generally kept in balance by the ease with which people can transition to a competing website if yours is too annoying.

      Recent advancements in Javascript execution speed are oriented towards polishing the thin client experience and capabilities. If fast Javascript execution becomes ubiquitous, sites can design much more successful thin clients because they can take that execution speed for granted. It's not all just flashing lights and annoying ads: take a look at the stunning Deluge BitTorrent Client's Web UI to see how nicely "Web 2.0" can be used.

    4. Re:6 milliseconds! Wheee!!! by Wraithlyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) Nobody uses load balancers and multiple app servers because they're serving "dancing and blinking crap" (Flash and JS heavy) sites. Those things slow down people's browsers, not the servers. Heavy server resources are needed when you need lots of server side processing, which generally comes from delivering customized pages to every user (ie you can't just cache everything). Furthermore, using AJAX helps REDUCE server load, by only requesting snippets of content, instead of complete page requests; you think GMail would be faster and less server-intensive if every click required a full page response? How about Google Maps?

      2) You seem to be under the impression that developers actually design sites. Maybe in some tiny one-man-show setup, but in the real world a UX/IA specialist designs the user experience, a designer does the visuals, the client signs off on it, and then the developer makes it all happen using whatever tools and techniques are necessary. They don't have the option to "toss it all out" and make it as simple as they like, much as they'd like to. Heck, I have to fight to make sure there's accessible fallback versions of the fancy JS-enhanced UIs everyone designs these days. "Throw it all out"? You live in a dream world buddy, or you do work of extremely limited scope.

      In short, your post is just "get off my lawn!". More and more clients demand rich user experiences, and this will continue to grow. Welcome to 2010.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  3. What Mozilla giveth, Slashcode taketh away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why do I have a feeling that Slashcode's terrible AJAX interface is going to get even worse in the near future?

    This is quite possibly the lamest e-peen measuring contest ever.

    1. Re:What Mozilla giveth, Slashcode taketh away. by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea, what is even more irritating is they keep subjecting us to it. Even thought the boxes stay checked I have had to go to my user preferences and turn on and then back off the new comment system several times in the last two weeks. I hate it, based on the comments I read here on Slashdot just about everyone else hates it two. Some of them are just Luddites that want the Slashdot of 1997 period but the rest of us just hate because its an awful way to browse and read comments, awful (GET IT TACO AWFUL) so many other sites have gotten it write, if you feel he need to update the look and feel of Slashdot go look at what others are doing!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:What Mozilla giveth, Slashcode taketh away. by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I actually like d2. I hate loading new pages for comments below my threshold. I just wish d2 worked better on iOS.

    3. Re:What Mozilla giveth, Slashcode taketh away. by moonbender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think Slashdot's AJAX is pretty poor, certainly not in line with what some of the better AJAXy sites do. That said, and even though I also keep having to look for stuff, I really love being able to things like in-line previewing and replying. I used to open the reply link in another tab, but that's a bad workaround. And changing the treshold without reloading the whole page is also nice, as is opening up "titles only" posts.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    4. Re:What Mozilla giveth, Slashcode taketh away. by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate the new comments system, too.

      Even thought the boxes stay checked I have had to go to my user preferences and turn on and then back off the new comment system several times in the last two weeks.

      Shit, I thought that I was the only person that happened to. I even had to log out/in to get the preference change to "stick".

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  4. Re:Yeah.... So? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, if it sucks, maybe you should implement a vacuum cleaner with it.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. thats great but.... by samfisher5986 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its great Firefox are working on certain areas of speed but they seem to always do it in the wrong areas or more to the point that their browser is built on top of a slow memory leaking turd. I run a computer with a E2200 on win7 at work. Firefox is sluggish, I've even tried the latest beta and its still slow. Chrome is very fast somehow and so none of these tests are that relevant to me. I haven't liked Firefox since version 2.

    1. Re:thats great but.... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that a lot of the browser is implemented in JavaScript, it should also make the browser itself faster.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:thats great but.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Note the times for this article, however. The benchmarks that they are running are taking less than half a second from loading the JavaScript code to finishing running. That's a fairly good test for typical web pages, but it's a pretty pointless benchmark. Any script that does that little will run at an adequate speed with a fairly naive bytecode interpreter.

      The things that really benefit from JavaScript speed are long-running scripts. Consider something like a Flash game that runs for minutes at a time. When I compile programs, the compiler typically spends a second or so of CPU time running optimisations. This can easily save several seconds of CPU time over the total run time of the program, but would be pointless for a short-lived web script. This trade changes when the scripts are running for a long time.

      Modern JavaScript implementations do dynamic optimisation based on run time profiling. This is what the trace stuff was all about. Trace-based optimisations work by finding a set of basic blocks that run in a particular order - irrespective of where they are in the source code - and creating an optimised sequence (without any branches except to leave the trace), so the common-case execution of a sequence of functions / methods does not involve any jumps. Benchmarks that complete in well under a second won't give this kind of stuff any time to kick in.

      JavaScript implementations need to be optimised for two things: fast start up (very noticeable to the user) and CPU usage for longer-running scripts. These benchmarks are only really testing the former, while things like the canvas tag and WebGL are making the latter more important.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:thats great but.... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your sig:

      sudo mod me up

      This will not work unless you give us your password. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  6. Benchmarks by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am sure this will set off a whole series of arguments over benchmarks, tuning, fairness, etc. But from this article I will just take this: I don't care which one is fastest to the few dozen milliseconds, they are probably all in the same "class" now. Everybody wins. (I can sorta understand not including IE, but wonder why they didn't include Opera?)

    Now that Javascript is so much faster, perhaps the browsers can focus on giving some type of automated/intelligent control over when it is used and how so older machines won't come to a CRAWL because of all the cutesy animation and junk spread over most big sites now. (And no, NoScript doesn't cut it- too complicated for most users, not automatic, too easy to break Javascript that is actually needed, etc). Suppress time-delayed actions, disable tight loops, throw artificial delays in loops under user control, visually tag elements to manually "play" on-demand only or stop after X seconds. I know, keep dreaming.

    1. Re:Benchmarks by markdavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flashblock only stops Flash, not Javascript animation. First it was animated GIF, then Flash, and now it is Javascript animation. Animated GIF and Flash are both easy to control. But Javascript animation is a whole different story. And although Adblock helps, a lot of the stuff is not ads.

      Web site designers don't seem to give a damn how much horsepower their site need or use. It is apparent when you try to browse the web using an older machine, or a smartphone. And on a portable device, all that extra "crud" eats up the battery fast.

    2. Re:Benchmarks by asa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am sure this will set off a whole series of arguments over benchmarks, tuning, fairness, etc. But from this article I will just take this: I don't care which one is fastest to the few dozen milliseconds, they are probably all in the same "class" now. Everybody wins. (I can sorta understand not including IE, but wonder why they didn't include Opera?)

      Now that Javascript is so much faster, ....

      Sunspider is a particularly bad benchmark. It was developed before any of the browsers had JITs. V8 is a bit better but still doesn't really stress the browser with the kinds of tasks that are still slow in JS. Mozilla's Kraken benchmark, http://krakenbenchmark.com/ does that. If you want to see why we still have a long ways to go, compare the speeds all browsers get on the Kraken tests with compiled code implementations of those features. Firefox leads the way on much of that, but it's still slow compared to native code. Kraken should help us focus on the real goal which isn't one-upping each other on various tests that are already fast in JS, but trying to catch up to compiled code. We all have a ways to go there.

      - A

  7. The Best Java Script Engine Available... by crow_t_robot · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...is NoScript. They have brought my Java script load times down to 0.00 seconds. Thanks, NoScript.

  8. Thanks for the hard work by DontLickJesus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seeing that Firefox on a few weeks ago was starting to lag pretty severely behind Chrome, I applaud and thank the Firefox team for their hard work. This is also a boon for their technique, the so-called "shotgunning" method of pushing through compilation the old way if it will complete faster than the optimizations. I had become afraid I might have to move to Chrome, looks like that won't be necessary.

    As a developer I completely understand the dislike of the "everything in a browser" attitude, but we need to look beyond that. The next version of ECMAScript will give us the security we've been wanting, and this round of browsers will give us the speed we need. Enabling universal, secure process level interaction between machines is the goal. You can think of it as widgets, .Net, or whichever other poison you want, but Javascript is free of ownership and frankly a damn good language when written properly.

    Now give me an 100% on the Acid3 test please, that way I'll have multiple tools to leverage against my boss next time he asks me to make a web app IE6 compatible.

    --
    Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
    1. Re:Thanks for the hard work by n0-0p · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll try explaining this again. SunSpider doesn't perform sufficient runs to take advantage of the tracing logic. And given the way the test is designed you will actually take a performance hit if you burn many cycles on front-end analysis. So, you consistently hit the unoptimized path where a good implementation uses simple translation logic for emitted instructions, along with a fast and light-weight assembler. (Comparing to YASM is silly, btw, because the needs of real-time JIT are very different from compiling in advance.)

      Since Mozilla already had most of the instruction generation logic from their old bytecode implementation, and the test isn't hitting their trace optimizer, the biggest improvement here is coming from the introduction of the Nitro assembler. That's not true for most other JS benchmarks, but it is true for SunSpider. This is why I said I want to see their performance on benchmarks that would take advantage of their tracing optimizations in real-world scenarios--not a test like SunSpider which is heavily weighted towards the compilation speed and baseline (unoptimized) execution speed.

    2. Re:Thanks for the hard work by BZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are several things wrong here:

      1) Spidermonkey still compiles the AST to bytecode.
      2) An assembler does just that: assembles. This means a 1-1 mapping of some other sort of
              representation of the exact machine instructions you want into actual bits in memory.
              There are no smarts here and no optimization going on; the only question is how fast
              you generate those bits in memory; an ideal assembler does this as fast as possible
              and without using too much memory. Now you have to generate assembly (or whatever
              representation the assembler takes as input) for it to assemble. That's the job of
              the compiler. JaegerMonkey takes the bytecode generated in step 1 and compiles it,
              passing the output to the assembler borrowed from Nitro. This compilation step is
              where (some of) the optimization takes place, and this is not code shared with Nitro.
      3) Tracemonkey is most certainly useful for Sunspider; just not as useful as for other
              things. See, for example, http://arewefastyet.com/?machine=6 where the purple line is
              below the black one solely because of Tracemonkey. Alernately, see
              https://bug580468.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=482609 where you can see the
              scores on each sunspider subtest as of a week or so ago; the -m column is JaegerMonkey
              without Tracemonkey, -j is Tracemonkey without Jaegermonkey, and -mjp is what's
              actually being used now (a combination of the two, with some smarts about deciding
              when to use which one).
      4) The goal of Kraken is in fact to include anticipated use cases. If you know
              anticipated use cases it doesn't include, I'm sure Rob Sayre would love to know what
              they are.

  9. and yet Firefox still can't use 1 core... :( by electrosoccertux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell me, mr anderson, what good is javascript performance if you are unable to use multiple cores?

    I wish someone would get on this and make firefox work with multiple cores better. As it is I use the "|" character in my home page settings to open about 20 tabs-- forums, review sites, slashdot, economics blogs, etc....and firefox slows to a grinding halt for about the 15 seconds (just timed it) it takes to render all those pages.
    Chrome does it in about 4 seconds and pegs all 4 of my cores to 100%.

    Please Mozilla, I know this would require a serious redesign, but it's seriously needed. Hitching while scrolling up/down because a tab is loading in the background (I make use of middle click to open tabs in the background extensively) is very annoying.

    1. Re:and yet Firefox still can't use 1 core... :( by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're working on it. It's just a matter of wanting to do it correctly rather than just doing it to say they've done it. Sort of like how they've resisted cheating on the Acid tests like some of the other browsers have been.

      Just about any moron can make a new browser window per tab and not have them talking to each other. But it takes a fair amount of work to get them connected enough for performance reasons without causing one tab to crash others.

  10. Re:no Internet Explorer comparison? by falc · · Score: 2, Informative

    from http://arewefastyet.com/faq.html:

    "3. Why isn't Opera/IE/something here?
    Right now, the performance tests are run on a Mac, which means no IE. Also the tests rely on a "shell" JS engine that runs in a command line. It doesn't test browsers. We'll change that, eventually."

  11. Interesting? by mseeger · · Score: 3, Informative

    I really don't see the point in a posting like this. Its all

            My _______ (1) is _______ (2) than yours

    with typical choices for (1):

    - car
    - wife / husband / significant other
    - d*ck
    - browser
    - javascript
    - OS

    and choices for (2) like:

    - faster
    - harder
    - more expensive
    - longer
    - more open
    - prettier

    Now that we have covered all these discussions, can we move on please?

    CU, Martin

    1. Re:Interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're just jealous that my wife is harder than yours.

  12. Quake II was released in 1997. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quake II was released in 1997. That's 13 years ago. At the time of its release, Intel's top-end CPU was the Pentium II running at 233 MHz, and even that had only just been released. Most Quake II players were still using Pentium or high-end 486 systems.

    Today, a decade and a half later, we have cell phones that are many hundreds of times faster than those Pentium and Pentium II systems, and desktop systems that are thousands or tens of thousands of times more powerful. Yet with all that raw processing power, JavaScript still barely allows us to do what we could do way back then.

    I don't know if you've tried it yet, but that version of Quake II that you've linked to runs quite poorly on very modern hardware when using Chrome (which has the best JavaScript implementation around).

    If JavaScript doesn't let us easily do what we could do before, we'll never be able to get further ahead.

    1. Re:Quake II was released in 1997. by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a general trend to higher level (which are bigger/slower) languages, look at the current fascination with ruby...

      The general trend has been that while hardware gets faster, software gets slower so the overall user experience remains the same... If you want a laugh, install some really old software on new hardware, i ran windows 3.0 on a p133 with 32mb a few years ago and it booted almost instantly compared to the 386/486 machines it was typically used on.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Quake II was released in 1997. by moonbender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hyperbole much? Cell phones aren't many hundreds of times faster than a Pentium or a P2, and desktops aren't thousands, much less tens of thousands of times faster. Hell, the clock is only about 10x faster (2GHz to 3GHz) -- where exactly do you think a 100- to 1000-fold increase in per-clock performance is coming from?

      For the record, the Quake 2 software renderer apparently does about 250 fps at 800x600 on todays top-of-the-line Intel CPUs. I still remember how Quake1 was choppy in software mode even at painfully low resolutions (I guess this must have been on a 133 Mhz Cyrix CPU).

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    3. Re:Quake II was released in 1997. by colinrichardday · · Score: 2, Informative

      Today, a decade and a half later, we have cell phones that are many hundreds of times faster than those Pentium and Pentium II systems,

      A hundred times faster than a 233 MHz processor? That's 23 GHz. What phone has a 23 GHz processor?

  13. Re:I can only see one use case for faster JS by takowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really, all this focus on faster Javascript puzzles me. JS, used correctly, should be a thin layer of glue,

    That was the original idea of JS. It's already being used much more heavily in current web apps. But the main point of speeding it up isn't for today's websites, it's so that websites can do entirely new things without bringing the browser to a crawl. Think image processing, online mini-games, and no doubt hundreds of more imaginative uses.

  14. Re:FF4 has some pretty serious memory leaks still, by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not a memory leak problem. This is pretty obvious when, after weeks of continuous use, Firefox's memory usage remains more or less constant.

    However, Firefox does have a memory fragmentation problem. After continuous use, the program will become noticeably slower on certain tasks which it previously had no issues with. This is particularly the case if you're visiting more intensive webpages. Often you're better just restarting it after the first 100 or so tabs.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  15. Re:FF4 has some pretty serious memory leaks still, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    As I've said, I've tried this. Firefox's memory use tops 200 MB after two weeks. Other browsers go over 200 MB in a few days. I'm not attacking you, just stating for the record that I cannot see a problem. Perhaps on your computer that problem exists. Do not assume that every other Firefox user in the world sees the same problem. I do not. If you don't believe me, look at any number of memory tests that show Firefox using less memory than other browsers: 1 2 3 4, and many more!

  16. Most of Firefox is written in JavaScript. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know, I know, it's damn near impossible to believe, but the Firefox developers voluntarily chose to write a huge portion of Firefox in JavaScript and XML (XUL). The rendering engine and network stack are written in C++, but just about everything else is implemented using JavaScript and XUL, including all of the UI.

    This is why JavaScript performance is so important to Firefox. While other browsers didn't make the same mistake, and wrote the bulk of the browsers in a real language like C++, the Firefox developers chose what is probably the stupidest architecture possible. A slow JavaScript implementation means their entire browser is slow, rather than just any web pages that might use JavaScript in some way.

  17. Re:FF4 has some pretty serious memory leaks still, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fragmentation can certainly cause a program to slow down. If memory is fragmented significantly, you're going to see a lot more page faults as memory is accessed. With an OS like Windows that's aggressive in moving memory out to disk things will certainly slow down.

  18. Re:FF4 has some pretty serious memory leaks still, by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think they forget that page caching is not a leak.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  19. Re:FF4 has some pretty serious memory leaks still, by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're missing the point; simply because you, me, or the majority experience no memory leak issues does not mean they don't exist. Computers differ enough that it's impossible to say that what works on one system will work on another with a different operating system, different system settings, different software installed, or even different hardware. I'll concede that it's impossible to replicate every possible user installation, but it's likely that the people who report the problem have something in common, even if it's not readily apparent; being hostile toward them for reporting it is arrogant and counterproductive.

    --
    Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
  20. Re:FF4 has some pretty serious memory leaks still, by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Memory fragmentation can cause it to slow down because it takes more overhead to find free space for more allocations.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  21. Verified on my sw-only 3D benchmark as well by ttsiod · · Score: 3, Informative

    I, too, saw the speed of Firefox 4 in a pretty simple, math-only benchmark that rotated a 3D object. Run it for yourself and/or see the gathered statistics (bottom of the page). Here is the Reddit discussion where many people run it and confirmed Firefox 4 supremacy.

  22. Re:FF4 has some pretty serious memory leaks still, by XO · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your operating system should be dealing with that, not the browser.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  23. Re:Lets move to gopher or whatever by miknix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tired of http? Lets move on to gopher..

  24. Please stop moaning! by mykdavies · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jesus guys, can't you just congratulate the Firefox devs on the great job they're doing? Just look at the rate of improvement over the past few months and give the JaegerMonkey/TraceMonkey guys kudos for a really impressive job of software engineering. Have a look at David Mandelin's recent post to get an idea of how much work and planning has gone into this project.

    --
    The world has changed and we all have become metal men.