> >> A language has nothing to do with speed of execution!
>
> It seems like Javascript's gotten faster in the last 10 years or so.
>
> I used to write little benchmarks to compare Turbo C and Turbo Pascal,
> Pascal always won.
Obviosuly C is generally faster than javascript and built in html
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:55:34AM -0400, Alan Corey wrote:
> [...]
> For a one-time use program sure, but things like Python shouldn't be
> unleashed on an unsuspecting public. Gimp 2.8 is noticeably slower
> than 2.6 I think it was in OpenBSD 5.2. Move the cursor over the
> image and it's like
>> A language has nothing to do with speed of execution!
It seems like Javascript's gotten faster in the last 10 years or so.
I used to write little benchmarks to compare Turbo C and Turbo Pascal,
Pascal always won.
> (Point being once things reach a certain level of complexity, issues
> like av
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Donald Allen
> wrote:
> > That is simply not true in general. If your application is
> > processor-limited and written in an interpreted language, do you think it
> > would get faster if you re-wrote it in C (as
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
> That is simply not true in general. If your application is
> processor-limited and written in an interpreted language, do you think it
> would get faster if you re-wrote it in C (assuming we are discussing a good
> programmer)? You're damned ri
On 2016-05-01, Tinker wrote:
> Wait, what is the best guess now, did the recent scheduler patches that
> were posted here recently, remedy the speed issue altogether?
Not altogether, but nonetheless a big improvement.
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Mihai Popescu wrote:
> > Wait, what is the best guess now, did the recent scheduler patches that
> were posted >here recently, remedy the speed issue altogether?
>
> Try and see for youself. I was doing that at almost each snapshot and
> chromium was the winner all
Mihai Popescu wrote:
> > Javascript may not be the fastest language around
>
> A language has nothing to do with speed of execution!
In many ways, it does. That discussion's off-topic for this list,
though. I'm happy to have it privately.
> Wait, what is the best guess now, did the recent scheduler patches that were
> posted >here recently, remedy the speed issue altogether?
Try and see for youself. I was doing that at almost each snapshot and
chromium was the winner all the time. Then firefox took over and I am
using it right now
On 2016-04-30 19:23, Alan Corey wrote:
Re: Performance of Firefox and Chromium
Several seconds? Oh my. Try 20 minutes or more on some of the most
bloated sites,
Wait, what is the best guess now, did the recent scheduler patches that
were posted here recently, remedy the speed issue
Alex Poslavsky wrote:
> Firefox saves its cache to ~/.cache, I mounted that as tmpfs and that
> seemed to make it a bit faster as well. Off course you loose all your
> cached stuff on reboot.
By many (most?) accounts, tmpfs is actually slower than an SSD. It's
presumably faster than a spinning dis
On 04/29, Maximilian Pichler wrote:
Hi,
After upgrading to 5.9 (and thus Chromium 48 and Firefox 44) browser
performance seems degraded. Opening three different tabs with e.g.
newspaper websites results in a noticeable lag (up to several seconds)
Firefox saves its cache to ~/.cache, I mounted
Le 2016-04-30 14:23, Alan Corey a écrit :
Re: Performance of Firefox and Chromium
Several seconds? Oh my. Try 20 minutes or more on some of the most
bloated sites, with lots of reloads and watching iftop to see when
they're stuck like on my connection. But thanks for the tip on
Noscript
Re: Performance of Firefox and Chromium
Several seconds? Oh my. Try 20 minutes or more on some of the most
bloated sites, with lots of reloads and watching iftop to see when
they're stuck like on my connection. But thanks for the tip on
Noscript, I'm trying it out.
--
Credit is t
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
> I have not tried 'current', but again, there is discussion in the archives
> about internal changes (in the scheduler?) that have apparently improved
> things significantly in this area.
Thanks for the hint. Updating to -current made both bro
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Maximilian Pichler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After upgrading to 5.9 (and thus Chromium 48 and Firefox 44) browser
> performance seems degraded. Opening three different tabs with e.g.
> newspaper websites results in a noticeable lag (up to several seconds)
> when switching
16 matches
Mail list logo
